Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 107 references

$f$-mode oscillations in hot Neutron Stars: Effect of hyperons and neutrino trapping

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In hyperonic neutron stars with trapped neutrinos, the nuclear saturation density becomes the dominant parameter controlling radii, tidal deformability, and f-mode frequencies.

desk verdict Solid extension of the authors' hot-star program to hyperons and neutrino trapping; the new n_sat correlation result is plausible, but the f-mode fits inherit a known Cowling caveat in the early-PNS regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03288 v2 pith:PMJ7Z4HL submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.HE nucl-th

Nilaksha Barman , Debarati Chatterjee This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEnucl-th
keywords neutronstarsf-modeoscillationshyperonsneutrinotrappingrelativisticmeanfieldequationofstateuniversalrelationsproto-neutron
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 offers an equation-of-state framework for hot neutron stars that treats finite temperature, hyperon degrees of freedom, and neutrino trapping on the same footing, then uses it to ask which nuclear parameters truly control the observable properties of proto-neutron stars and merger remnants. The central finding is a shift in hierarchy: in hyperonic matter with trapped neutrinos, the nuclear saturation density $n_{\mathrm{sat}}$ shows moderate-to-strong correlations with radius, tidal deformability, and f-mode frequency, while the in-medium nucleon mass $m^*/m$ — the parameter that dominates cold stars and hot nucleonic-only stars — loses much of its influence. From the Bayesian posteriors the paper derives new fit relations for the f-mode frequency as a function of average mass density and for the compactness–tidal-deformability (C-Love) relation, tailored to two thermal states of a proto-neutron star: an early lepton-rich state and a later deleptonized state. These fits matter because they are the reference curves that future gravitational-wave observations of post-merger remnants or newly born neutron stars would be compared against.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a non-linear relativistic mean-field Lagrangian for the full baryon octet (nucleons and hyperons) interacting through $\sigma$, $\omega$, $\rho$, and $\phi$ mesons, extended to finite temperature through Fermi-Dirac statistics and to neutrino-trapped matter through a lepton chemical potential that keeps electron-type neutrinos in equilibrium with the thermal bath; a thermodynamic state is fixed by entropy per baryon and total lepton fraction $Y_L$. Around this sits a Bayesian sampling scheme that varies the nuclear saturation parameters ($n_{\mathrm{sat}}$, $E_{\mathrm{sat}}$, $K_{\mathrm{sat}}$, $J_{\mathrm{sym}}$, $L_{\mathrm{sym}}$, $m^*/m$) and the hyperon potentials within experimental uncertainty, retaining only equations of state that pass chiral-EFT, astrophysical, and heavy-ion filters. The f-mode frequencies are computed in the relativistic Cowling approximation, which neglects the perturbations of the spacetime metric and reduces the problem to fluid pressure and density oscillations; the new fit relations in Tables 2 and 3 are built from those frequencies and from the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff mass-radius configurations.

What would settle it

Recompute the f-mode frequencies for the same posterior equation-of-state ensemble in full general relativity, dropping the Cowling approximation, for the two thermal configurations NY(1,0.4) and NY(2,0.2); the central claim would be refuted if the resulting frequencies shift enough to erase the reported correlations between $n_{\mathrm{sat}}$ and the observables or to push the Table 2 and 3 fits outside their stated scatter. A complementary observational check would be a detected post-merger or proto-neutron-star oscillation whose f-mode frequency, at known mass and radius, contradicts the fitted $\nu_f$–$\sqrt{\bar{M}/\bar{R}^3}$ relation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that once hyperons are present and neutrinos are trapped — the conditions prevailing inside proto-neutron stars and binary-neutron-star merger remnants — the saturation density $n_{\mathrm{sat}}$ of symmetric nuclear matter is the nuclear parameter that most strongly governs stellar structure and oscillations. Working with thousands of posterior equations of state generated in a non-linear relativistic mean-field model and filtered by chiral effective field theory, astrophysical mass-radius measurements, and heavy-ion collision data, the authors find moderate-to-strong correlations of $n_{\mathrm{sat}}$ with radius, tidal deformability, and f-mode frequency for canonical $1.4\,M_\odot$ and $2\,M_\odot$ hot configurations; the correlations with the $2\,M_\odot$ observables appear once heavy-ion constraints are imposed. This is presented as a reversal relative to nucleonic-only hot matter, where $m^*/m$ is the dominant parameter and $n_{\mathrm{sat}}$ shows no such correlations. On the strength of these correlations, the paper supplies new linear fits of f-mode frequency versus $\sqrt{\bar{M}/\bar{R}^3}$ and quadratic C-Love fits for the two neutrino-trapped configurations, and shows that existing cold-star fits miss these hot hyperonic frequencies: those of Andersson & Kokkotas (1998) and Pradhan & Chatterjee (2021) underestimate them, while the fit of Doneva et al. (2013) overestimates them.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on f-mode frequencies computed in the Cowling approximation, which leaves the spacetime metric unperturbed while the fluid oscillates, and the paper itself concedes that this scheme may break down during the first 0.4 seconds of proto-neutron-star evolution — precisely the early phase in which the hyperonic, neutrino-trapped configurations studied here are most relevant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported hierarchy holds, f-mode gravitational waves from a hot remnant could be inverted to infer $n_{\mathrm{sat}}$ directly, giving a nuclear-physics measurement that radius observations alone cannot provide.
  • The new fits in Tables 2 and 3, not the cold-star universal relations, are the appropriate reference for interpreting f-mode frequencies and tidal deformabilities of hot hyperonic configurations, since the cold fits systematically misestimate the frequencies.
  • Composition-blind EOS constraints will misattribute correlations: a measurement dominated by $m^*/m$ in nucleonic stars should be read as an $n_{\mathrm{sat}}$ constraint if hyperons are present.
  • Because the $\Gamma$-law thermal prescription is shown to fail when hyperonic species appear, simulations of merger remnants and supernovae that use it will bias the inferred hot equation of state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable prediction the authors leave implicit: if the correlation between $n_{\mathrm{sat}}$ and the f-mode frequency of a $2\,M_\odot$ configuration is genuine, a future detection of a hot remnant's f-mode would effectively measure the saturation density, and the value should land near the heavy-ion-filtered posterior peak of $n_{\mathrm{sat}} \approx 0.143$ fm$^{-3}$.
  • Folding the recent NICER mass-radius measurement of PSR J0437-4715 into the Bayesian filters would sharpen or break the claimed $n_{\mathrm{sat}}$ correlations, providing a near-term check of the paper's central claim.
  • Repeating the fit construction with full general-relativistic f-modes would quantify the systematic shift in Tables 2 and 3 during the first 0.4 seconds of proto-neutron-star evolution — the epoch where neutrino trapping is strongest and the Cowling approximation is most doubtful.
  • Because the hyperon potentials show no correlation with any observable, the paper's results imply that future effort on hot-star equations of state should concentrate on the isoscalar saturation sector rather than on the poorly known $\Sigma$ and $\Xi$ potentials.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops a finite-temperature, non-linear relativistic mean-field equation of state (EOS) formalism that includes hyperons and neutrino trapping, and uses it to build a large set of EOSs via a Bayesian cut-off filter constrained by chiral effective field theory, astrophysical observations, and heavy-ion data. The authors compute proto-neutron-star configurations and f-mode oscillations in the Cowling approximation for two isentropic neutrino-trapped thermal states, NY(1,0.4) and NY(2,0.2), and analyze correlations between nuclear/hypernuclear parameters and observables such as radius, tidal deformability, maximum mass, and f-mode frequency. They report that the saturation density n_sat is the dominant parameter for hot hyperonic neutrino-trapped stars, with moderate-to-strong correlations with several observables, and they provide modified fits for the f-mode frequency versus average density relation and the C-Love relation.

Significance. If the main claims hold, the identification of n_sat as the dominant nuclear parameter in the hot hyperonic neutrino-trapped regime is a nontrivial extension of earlier cold and nucleonic studies, and the new fit relations for this regime would be useful for interpreting gravitational waves from proto-neutron stars and post-merger remnants. The paper has clear strengths: it systematically varies nuclear and hypernuclear parameters within a Bayesian framework, it is transparent about the constraints applied, and it includes explicit correlation matrices in the appendices that make the emergent correlations inspectable. The principal caveat is that the f-mode frequencies, which feed the n_sat-nu_f correlations and the Table 2 fits, are computed in the Cowling approximation in a regime where the paper itself notes the approximation may not hold.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 5, Sec. 3.4, Table 2] The paper's own Section 5 states that the Cowling approximation 'may not hold' for the evolutionary phase before 0.4 seconds (Rodriguez et al. 2023). This phase is precisely the regime of the NY(1,0.4) configuration, which Section 3.4 introduces as an early leptonized state. Because the f-mode frequencies computed in this approximation feed the n_sat-nu_f correlations reported in Section 3.4 and Appendix B, and the modified f-mode fits in Table 2, the central claim is currently not quantitatively validated. Please either compute f-modes in full general relativity for a representative subset of the posterior to estimate the Cowling systematic bias and demonstrate that the correlations and fits are robust, or explicitly restrict the f-mode claims and fit relations to the regime where the Cowling approximation is known to be valid, with a stated systematic error.
  2. [Tables 2 and 3] The fit coefficients for the nu_f-sqrt(Mbar/Rbar^3) relation (Table 2) and the C-Love relation (Table 3) are quoted without statistical uncertainties or goodness-of-fit measures, even though they are obtained from a posterior ensemble of EOSs. Please provide standard errors on the coefficients and, for Table 2, the RMS scatter, so that future observations can be compared with these modified universal relations in a statistically meaningful way.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Data Availability (p.15)] The Data Availability statement ('No new data was generated in support of this document') is inconsistent with the claim in Section 5 that finite-temperature EOS tables will be provided in the CompOSE database. Please deposit the generated tables in a public repository and cite the identifier, or revise the text.
  2. [Sec. 2.3] The procedure for generating the 'about 1700 posterior sets' and 'about 2300 posterior sets' is not described; please add a brief account of the sampling method, the number of draws, the filtering acceptance rate, and the independence of the posterior samples for reproducibility.
  3. [Sec. 3.4 and Appendices A/B] The text describes correlations as 'moderate to strong' and 'significantly increased,' but Pearson correlation coefficients are only explicitly provided in the caption of Fig. 11. Please quote the relevant correlation coefficients in the text or in each panel caption so that the reader can judge the strength of the claimed correlations.
  4. [Sec. 2.3] There is a typo in the word 'nculear' in Section 2.3; please proofread the manuscript for similar typos.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central correlations and fit relations are computed, not fitted to targets; self-citations supply priors and formalism but are not load-bearing.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: Table 1 defines uniform priors for nuclear and hypernuclear parameters; Section 2.3 filters them by external, independent constraints (χEFT, Astro from PSR J0740-6620 and GW170817, and HIC from KaoS/FOPI/ASY-EOS). The posterior EOS ensembles are then used to solve the TOV/Cowling equations (Section 3.4), and the reported n_sat correlations are computed from the resulting joint posteriors, not imposed. The universal-relation fits in Tables 2 and 3 are fits to the model's own output and are explicitly presented as modified fits, compared against external cold-matter fits (Andersson & Kokkotas 1998; Doneva et al. 2013; Pradhan & Chatterjee 2021); a fit to one's own model output is not a prediction, so no fitted-input-called-prediction circularity arises. The self-citations (Ghosh et al. 2022a,b; Barman et al. 2025) supply prior ranges, hypernuclear potential widths, and baseline comparisons, but the load-bearing constraints are external data, and the central claim (n_sat dominates in hot hyperonic ν-trapped stars) is reachable from the paper's own computed posterior suite. The Section 5 caveat that Cowling may not hold before 0.4 s is a validity limitation on the quantitative f-mode fits, not a circular reduction; it is explicitly flagged and does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. Data-availability wording and missing fit uncertainties are reporting issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on a standard nuclear model with a set of varied saturation and hypernuclear parameters, plus the Cowling approximation and the adopted external constraints. No new exotic entities are introduced. The fit coefficients in Tables 2 and 3 are fitted outputs, but they are part of the claimed new universal relations.

free parameters (10)
  • n_sat (saturation density) = 0.14 to 0.17 fm^-3 (uniform prior)
    Central parameter in the claimed correlation with observables; sampled within the stated range.
  • E_sat (energy per particle) = -16 +/- 0.2 MeV
    Varied within uncertainty range from previous work; contributes to EOS stiffness.
  • K_sat (incompressibility) = 200 to 300 MeV
    Sampled in the Bayesian filter; affects high-density behavior.
  • J_sym (symmetry energy) = 28 to 34 MeV
    Isovector parameter varied within range.
  • L_sym (slope of symmetry energy) = 40 to 70 MeV
    Isovector parameter; prior work shows its effect diminishes with temperature.
  • m*/m (effective nucleon mass ratio) = 0.55 to 0.75
    Dominant parameter in nucleonic models; role is shown to weaken with hyperons.
  • U_N_Sigma (Sigma potential) = 0 to 30 MeV
    Hypernuclear potential varied in the analysis.
  • U_N_Xi (Xi potential) = -30 to 0 MeV
    Hypernuclear potential varied in the analysis.
  • f-mode fit coefficients (a, b) = NY(1,0.4): 1.316, 1.306; NY(2,0.2): 0.991, 1.637
    Fitted to the computed f-mode frequencies to provide updated universal relations in Table 2.
  • C-Love fit coefficients (a0, a1, a2) = see Table 3
    Fitted to the computed compactness-tidal deformability data in Table 3.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Nonlinear relativistic mean field Lagrangian with sigma, omega, rho, phi meson exchange describes baryonic matter.
    Standard model in nuclear astrophysics; the paper builds on it throughout Section 2.
  • domain assumption Hyperon vector couplings follow SU(6) symmetry; uncertainty is carried by the sigma-Y couplings derived from hypernuclear potentials.
    Section 2: 'The omega- and phi-couplings are fixed to their SU(6) values'.
  • ad hoc to paper The strange scalar meson sigma* is ignored.
    Section 2: ignored because 'it softens the EOS making it incompatible with observed NS masses'.
  • domain assumption Neutrinos are trapped and in equilibrium for T > 5 MeV, described by a lepton chemical potential.
    Section 2.1, citing Alford & Harris 2018; this defines the neutrino-trapped ensemble.
  • domain assumption The Cowling approximation is valid for computing f-mode frequencies in the hot configurations.
    Section 5 acknowledges it may not hold before 0.4 s; the neutrino-trapped regime may coincide with that phase.
  • domain assumption External constraints from chiEFT, Astro, and HIC are correct and applicable.
    Section 2.3, the Bayesian filters rely on these datasets.
  • domain assumption The star is modeled as homogeneous matter without a crust.
    Section 2 and 3 compute TOV and oscillations using the homogeneous core EOS; no crust model is described.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $f$-mode oscillations in hot Neutron Stars: Effect of hyperons and neutrino trapping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PMJ7Z4HL

@misc{pith2026250603288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $f$-mode oscillations in hot Neutron Stars: Effect of hyperons and neutrino trapping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PMJ7Z4HL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03288}
}
abstract

In this work, we present an equation of state formalism for hot Neutron Stars (NSs) which consistently includes the effects of finite temperature, hyperons as well as neutrino trapping, relevant for the study of proto-neutron stars, binary neutron star mergers and supernova explosions. Within a non-linear relativistic mean field description, the framework allows for a systematic variation of nuclear parameters within the range allowed by uncertainties in nuclear experimental data, ensuring compatibility with nuclear theory, astrophysical and heavy-ion data. We then investigate the role of nuclear and hypernuclear parameters as well as thermal effects on NS macroscopic properties and $f$-mode oscillations in hot neutron stars within Cowling approximation. Our results reveal that in hyperonic neutron stars with trapped neutrinos, the saturation nuclear density shows moderate to strong correlation with NS astrophysical observables. We also investigate whether thermal effects break universal relations and provide fit relations for hot NS configurations in the neutrino-trapped regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03288 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Posteriors of isoscalar nuclear parameters with different constraints for NY-matter. (a) nsat posteriors, (b) Ksat posteriors, (c) m∗/m posteriors 3 RESULTS 3.1 ν-free case: Isothermal configuration We first compare hot and cold NS configurations for N- and NY-matter without neutrinos. For this, we consider two ther￾modynamic conditions: T = 0 MeV and YQ = 0.2; T = 20 MeV and YQ = 0.2. In order to isolate the effect… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Thermal contributions to energy density and pressure. Nuclear and hypernuclear properties are set to fixed values mentioned in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Γ-law and particle fractions. Nuclear and hypernuclear properties are set to fixed values mentioned in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between ν-free and ν-trapped cases for nucleonic (N-) matter. Solid (dashed) curves indicate ν-free (ν-trapped) cases. The nuclear properties are set to the fixed values mentioned in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between ν-free and ν-trapped cases for hyperonic (NY-) matter. Solid (dashed) curves indicate ν-free (ν-trapped) cases. The nuclear and hypernuclear properties are set to the fixed values mentioned in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Particle fractions for N (solid)- and NY (dotted)-matter for two isentropic thermal configurations are shown. The nuclear and hypernuclear properties are set to the fixed values mentioned in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mass-radius relations for two thermal configurations obtained after imposing constraints from χEFT, Astrophysical observations (Astro) and Heavy Ion Collisions (HIC). (a) S/A = 1, YL = 0.4, (b) S/A = 2, YL = 0.2 (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: f-mode frequencies (Cowling) as a function of mass for two thermal configurations obtained after imposing constraints from χEFT, Astrophysical observations (Astro) and Heavy Ion Collisions (HIC). (a) S/A = 1, YL = 0.4, (b) S/A = 2, YL = 0.2 properties for both thermal …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Joint posteriors for nsat (in fm−3 ) and Radius (in km) of canonical 1.4M⊙ hot NSs for two thermal configurations with constraints from χEFT and Astro. (a) S/A = 1, YL = 0.4, (b) S/A = 2, YL = 0.2 nsat = 0.143+0.003 −0.002 0.141 0.144 0.147 0.150 0.153 nsat 2.16 2.19 2…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Joint posteriors for nsat (in fm−3 ) and f-mode frequency (in kHz) of canonical 2M⊙ hot NSs for two thermal configurations with constraints from χEFT, Astro and HIC. (a) S/A = 1, YL = 0.4, (b) S/A = 2, YL = 0.2 clear parameters along with the hyperon potentials do not…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Joint posteriors for effective mass and maximum mass in M⊙ of hot NSs for NY (2, 0.2) configuration. (a) χEFT + Astro (correlation = - 0.66), (b) χEFT + Astro + HIC (correlation = - 0.47) nuclear physics uncertainties, enabling tests of general rela￾tivity in the stro…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Relation between f-mode frequency and square root of average mass density for the thermal configurations: NY (1, 0.4) (blue) and NY (2, 0.2) (red). Linear fit relations found for these configurations are shown in black and magenta lines respectively. Also shown are fi…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: C − Love relations. Top panel shows the universal relation and bottom panel shows the fit error obtained from fit relation(s) given in this work. The black curves in both rows represent the fit relation obtained in our previous work (Barman et al. 2025). The dark-oran…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [Phys

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , 119, 161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  2. [2]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [Phys

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101 , 121, 161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101 2018

  3. [3]

    P., et al., 2019, @doi [Phys

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2019, @doi [Phys. Rev. X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001 , 9, 011001

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.011001 2019

  4. [4]

    G., Harris S

    Alford M. G., Harris S. P., 2018, @doi [Physical Review C] 10.1103/physrevc.98.065806 , 98

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.98.065806 2018

  5. [5]

    G., Haber A., Harris S

    Alford M. G., Haber A., Harris S. P., Zhang Z., 2021, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe7110399 , 7, 399

    doi:10.3390/universe7110399 2021

  6. [6]

    Annala E., Gorda T., Kurkela A., Vuorinen A., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.172703 , 120, 172703

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.172703 2018

  7. [7]

    A., Bautz M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Arzoumanian Z., et al., 2014, in Takahashi T., den Herder J.-W. A., Bautz M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9144, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray. p. 914420, @doi 10.1117/12.2056811

    doi:10.1117/12.2056811 2014

  8. [8]

    Baiotti L., 2019, @doi [Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.103714 , 109, 103714

    arXiv 2019

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    Baiotti L., Rezzolla L., 2017, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/1361-6633/aa67bb , 80, 096901

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    K., Chatterjee D., 2025, @doi [Phys

    Barman N., Pradhan B. K., Chatterjee D., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.023017 , 111, 023017

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    T., 2012, @doi [Phys

    Bauswein A., Janka H. T., 2012, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.011101 , 108, 011101

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    F., Blaschke D

    Bauswein A., Bastian N.-U. F., Blaschke D. B., Chatziioannou K., Clark J. A., Fischer T., Oertel M., 2019, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.061102 , 122, 061102

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    D., Song Y., Takatsuka T., 2018, @doi [Rept

    Baym G., Hatsuda T., Kojo T., Powell P. D., Song Y., Takatsuka T., 2018, @doi [Rept. Prog. Phys.] 10.1088/1361-6633/aaae14 , 81, 056902

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Benhar O., Ferrari V., Gualtieri L., 2004, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.124015 , 70, 124015

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    Bernuzzi S., Dietrich T., Nagar A., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.091101 , 115, 091101

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    V., Raduta A

    Beznogov M. V., Raduta A. R., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. C] 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.045803 , 107, 045803

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Meyer R., 2021, @doi [Phys

    Bizouard M.-A., Maturana-Russel P., Torres-Forn\'e A., Obergaulinger M., Cerd\'a-Dur\'an P., Christensen N., Font J. A., Meyer R., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063006 , 103, 063006

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    F., Bauswein A., Blaschke D

    Blacker S., Bastian N.-U. F., Bauswein A., Blaschke D. B., Fischer T., Oertel M., Soultanis T., Typel S., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123023 , 102, 123023

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Blacker S., Bauswein A., Typel S., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.063032 , 108, 063032

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Blacker S., Kochankovski H., Bauswein A., Ramos A., Tolos L., 2024, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043015 , 109, 043015

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Bruel T., et al., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.083029 , 107, 083029

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    F., Schulze H

    Burgio G. F., Schulze H. J., Vidana I., Wei J. B., 2021, @doi [Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.] 10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103879 , 120, 103879

    2021

  15. [23]

    Burrows A., Vartanyan D., 2020, @doi [Nature] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w , 589, 29

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Chatterjee D., Vidaña I., 2016, @doi [The European physical journal A] 10.1140/epja/i2016-16029-x , 52, 1

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Chen W.-C., Piekarewicz J., 2014, @doi [Phys. Rev. C] 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.044305 , 90, 044305

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    G., 1941, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/101.8.367 , 101, 367

    Cowling T. G., 1941, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/101.8.367 , 101, 367

    1941 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Brown D

    De S., Finstad D., Lattimer J. M., Brown D. A., Berger E., Biwer C. M., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.091102 , 121, 091102

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Dexheimer V., Schramm S., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/589735 , 683, 943

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    D., Gaertig E., Kokkotas K

    Doneva D. D., Gaertig E., Kokkotas K. D., Kr\"uger C., 2013, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044052 , 88, 044052

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    Drischler C., Carbone A., Hebeler K., Schwenk A., 2016, @doi [Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math.] 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.054307 , 94, 054307

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    Drischler C., Hebeler K., Schwenk A., 2019, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.042501 , 122, 042501

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Endrizzi A., Logoteta D., Giacomazzo B., Bombaci I., Kastaun W., Ciolfi R., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043015 , 98, 043015

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    K., Chatterjee D., Schaffner-Bielich J., 2022a, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2022.864294 , 9, 864294

    Ghosh S., Pradhan B. K., Chatterjee D., Schaffner-Bielich J., 2022a, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2022.864294 , 9, 864294

    2022

  26. [34]

    Ghosh S., Chatterjee D., Schaffner-Bielich J., 2022b, @doi [The European physical journal A] 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00679-w , 58, 1

    doi

  27. [35]

    J., Routaray P., Kumar B., Agrawal B

    Ghosh S., Shaikh S., Kalita P. J., Routaray P., Kumar B., Agrawal B. K., 2024, @doi [Nucl. Phys. B] 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2024.116697 , 1008, 116697

    2024

  28. [36]

    K., 1997, Compact Stars

    Glendenning N. K., 1997, Compact Stars. Springer New York, NY, @doi https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-0491-3

    1997 doi

  29. [37]

    Y., Yakovlev D

    Haensel P., Potekhin A. Y., Yakovlev D. G., 2007, Neutron stars 1: Equation of state and structure. Vol. 326, Springer, @doi 10.1007/978-0-387-47301-7

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    Hartnack C., Oeschler H., Aichelin J., 2006, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.012302 , 96, 012302

    2006 doi

  31. [39]

    Hornick N., Tolos L., Zacchi A., Christian J.-E., Schaffner-Bielich J., 2018, @doi [Physical Review C] 10.1103/physrevc.98.065804 , 98, 065804

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    D., Pelicer M

    Issifu A., Marquez K. D., Pelicer M. R., Menezes D. P., 2023, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stad1198 , 522, 3263

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Menezes D

    Issifu A., da Silva F. M., Menezes D. P., 2024, @doi [Eur. Phys. J. C] 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12828-0 , 84, 463

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Rezaei Z., Frederico T., 2025, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/024 , 01, 024

    Issifu A., Menezes D. P., Rezaei Z., Frederico T., 2025, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/024 , 01, 024

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    Janka H.-T., Langanke K., Marek A., Martínez-Pinedo G., Müller B., 2007, @doi [Physics Reports] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.002 , 442, 38

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    R., Oertel M., Sedrakian A., 2021, @doi [Phys

    Khadkikar S., Raduta A. R., Oertel M., Sedrakian A., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. C] 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.055811 , 103, 055811

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    E., Blaschke D

    Khosravi Largani N., Fischer T., Sedrakian A., Cierniak M., Alvarez-Castillo D. E., Blaschke D. B., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac1916 , 515, 3539

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    Kochankovski H., Ramos A., Tolos L., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac2671 , 517, 507

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    Kochankovski H., Ramos A., Tolos L., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae231 , 528, 2629

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    Kumar A., Thakur P., Sinha M., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae834 , 530, 501–513

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    S., Kanakis-Pegios A., Moustakidis C

    Laskos-Patkos P., Koliogiannis P. S., Kanakis-Pegios A., Moustakidis C. C., 2022, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe8080395 , 8, 395

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    S., Kanakis-Pegios A., Moustakidis C

    Laskos-Patkos P., Koliogiannis P. S., Kanakis-Pegios A., Moustakidis C. C., 2023, @doi [HNPS Adv. Nucl. Phys.] 10.12681/hnpsanp.5098 , 29, 94

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    M., 2012, @doi [Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science] https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-095018 , 62, 485

    Lattimer J. M., 2012, @doi [Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science] https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-095018 , 62, 485

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    M., 2021, @doi [Ann

    Lattimer J. M., 2021, @doi [Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.] 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419-124827 , 71, 433

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    M., Prakash M., 2004, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1090720 , 304, 536

    Lattimer J. M., Prakash M., 2004, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1090720 , 304, 536

    2004 doi

  46. [54]

    M., Swesty D

    Lattimer J. M., Swesty D. F., 1991, @doi [Nuclear Phsyics A] 10.1016/0375-9474(91)90452-C , 535, 331

    1991 doi

  47. [55]

    Le Fèvre A., Leifels Y., Reisdorf W., Aichelin J., Hartnack C., 2016, @doi [Nuclear Physics A] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2015.09.015 , 945, 112

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    Li J.-J., Sedrakian A., 2023, @doi [A. P. J.] https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acfa73 , 957, 41

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    G., Contrera G

    Malfatti G., Orsaria M. G., Contrera G. A., Weber F., Ranea-Sandoval I. F., 2019, @doi [Phys. Rev. C] 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.015803 , 100, 015803

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    Maselli A., Cardoso V., Ferrari V., Gualtieri L., Pani P., 2013, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.023007 , 88, 023007

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    ( @eprint arXiv 1507.05680 )

    Mezzacappa A., et al., 2015. ( @eprint arXiv 1507.05680 )

    2015 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J., Dover C

    Millener D. J., Dover C. B., Gal A., 1988, @doi [Phys. Rev. C] 10.1103/PhysRevC.38.2700 , 38, 2700

    1988 doi

  53. [61]

    C., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 , 887, L24

    Miller M. C., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 , 887, L24

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    C., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b , 918, L28

    Miller M. C., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b , 918, L28

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    R., Weih L

    Most E. R., Weih L. R., Rezzolla L., Schaffner-Bielich J., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.261103 , 120, 261103

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    R., Papenfort L

    Most E. R., Papenfort L. J., Dexheimer V., Hanauske M., Schramm S., St\"ocker H., Rezzolla L., 2019, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.061101 , 122, 061101

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    R., Motornenko A., Steinheimer J., Dexheimer V., Hanauske M., Rezzolla L., Stoecker H., 2023, @doi [Phys

    Most E. R., Motornenko A., Steinheimer J., Dexheimer V., Hanauske M., Rezzolla L., Stoecker H., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.043034 , 107, 043034

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    Nils Andersson K. D. K., 1998, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01840.x , 299, 1059–1068

    1998

  59. [67]

    Oechslin R., Janka H.-T., 2007, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.121102 , 99, 121102

    2007 doi

  60. [68]

    Oertel M., Hempel M., Kl\"ahn T., Typel S., 2017, @doi [Rev. Mod. Phys.] 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015007 , 89, 015007

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    P., Couch S

    O’Connor E. P., Couch S. M., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadcf7 , 865, 81

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    A., Reddy S., Prakash M., Lattimer J

    Pons J. A., Reddy S., Prakash M., Lattimer J. M., Miralles J. A., 1999, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/306889 , 513, 780

    1999 doi

  63. [71]

    K., Chatterjee D., Lanoye M., Jaikumar P., 2022, @doi [Physical Review C] 10.1103/physrevc.106.015805 , 106, 015805

    Pradhan B. K., Chatterjee D., Lanoye M., Jaikumar P., 2022, @doi [Physical Review C] 10.1103/physrevc.106.015805 , 106, 015805

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    J., Lattimer J

    Prakash M., Bombaci I., Prakash M., Ellis P. J., Lattimer J. M., Knorren R., 1997, @doi [Physics Reports] https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(96)00023-3 , 280, 1

    1997 doi

  65. [73]

    F., Ott C

    Radice D., Bernuzzi S., Del Pozzo W., Roberts L. F., Ott C. D., 2017, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa775f , 842, L10

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    R., 2022, @doi [Eur

    Raduta A. R., 2022, @doi [Eur. Phys. J. A] https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00772-0 , 58, 1

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    R., Oertel M., Sedrakian A., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa2491 , 499, 914

    Raduta A. R., Oertel M., Sedrakian A., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa2491 , 499, 914

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

    I., Rea N., Vida\ na I., eds, 2018, The Physics and Astrophysics of Neutron Stars

    Rezzolla L., Pizzochero P., Jones D. I., Rea N., Vida\ na I., eds, 2018, The Physics and Astrophysics of Neutron Stars . Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 457, Springer, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-97616-7

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    E., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c , 887, L21

    Riley T. E., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c , 887, L21

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    E., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81 , 918, L27

    Riley T. E., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81 , 918, L27

    2021 doi

  71. [79]

    C., Ranea-Sandoval I

    Rodriguez M. C., Ranea-Sandoval I. F., Chirenti C., Radice D., 2023, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stad1459 , 523, 2236

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    Rosswog S., 2015, @doi [Int. J. Mod. Phys. D] 10.1142/S0218271815300128 , 24, 1530012

    2015 doi

  73. [81]

    Russotto P., et al., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. C] 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.034608 , 94, 034608

    2016 doi

  74. [82]

    Rutherford N., et al., 2024, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f02 , 971, L19

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

    Cambridge University Press, @doi https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316848357

    Schaffner-Bielich J., 2020, Compact Star Physics. Cambridge University Press, @doi https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316848357

    2020 doi

  76. [84]

    Schaffner J., Greiner C., St\"ocker H., 1992, @doi [Phys. Rev. C] 10.1103/PhysRevC.46.322 , 46, 322

    1992 doi

  77. [85]

    B., Gal A., Greiner C., St\"ocker H., 1993, @doi [Phys

    Schaffner J., Dover C. B., Gal A., Greiner C., St\"ocker H., 1993, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.1328 , 71, 1328

    1993 doi

  78. [86]

    Sekiguchi Y., Kiuchi K., Kyutoku K., Shibata M., 2011, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.211101 , 107, 211101

    2011 doi

  79. [87]

    Shen H., Toki H., Oyamatsu K., Sumiyoshi K., 1998, @doi [Nuclear Phsyics A] 10.1016/S0375-9474(98)00236-X , 637, 435

    1998 doi

  80. [88]

    Shirke S., Ghosh S., Chatterjee D., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acac31 , 944, 7

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    Nachr.] 10.1002/asna.201913592 , 340, 217

    Sotani H., 2019, @doi [Astron. Nachr.] 10.1002/asna.201913592 , 340, 217

    2019 doi

  82. [90]

    Sotani H., Takiwaki T., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.044043 , 94, 044043

    2016 doi

  83. [91]

    Sotani H., Takiwaki T., 2020a, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063025 , 102, 063025

    doi

  84. [92]

    Sotani H., Takiwaki T., 2020b, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023028 , 102, 023028

    doi

  85. [93]

    Sotani H., Takiwaki T., 2020c, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/staa2597 , 498, 3503

    doi

  86. [94]

    Sotani H., M\"uller B., Takiwaki T., 2024, Universality in supernova gravitational waves with proto-neutron star properties ( @eprint arXiv 2405.09030 )

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Takami K., Rezzolla L., Baiotti L., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.064001 , 91, 064001

    2015 doi

  88. [96]

    B., Beznogov M

    Thapa V. B., Beznogov M. V., Raduta A. R., Thakur P., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103054 , 107, 103054

    2023 doi

  89. [97]

    Tong H., Zhao P., Meng J., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. C] 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.035802 , 101, 035802

    2020 doi

  90. [98]

    A., 2019a, @doi [Phys

    Torres-Forn\'e A., Cerd\'a-Dur\'an P., Obergaulinger M., M\"uller B., Font J. A., 2019a, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.239901 , 123, 051102

    doi

  91. [99]

    A., 2019b, @doi [Mon

    Torres-Forn\'e A., Cerd\'a-Dur\'an P., Passamonti A., Obergaulinger M., Font J. A., 2019b, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/sty2854 , 482, 3967

    doi

  92. [100]

    Tsiopelas S., Sedrakian A., Oertel M., 2024, Finite-temperature equations of state of compact stars with hyperons: three-dimensional tables ( @eprint arXiv 2406.00484 ), @doi 10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01351-1

    2024 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Typel S., Wolter H., 1999, @doi [Nuclear Physics A] https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00310-3 , 656, 331

    1999 doi

  94. [102]

    https://compose.obspm.fr/

    Typel S., et al., 2022, CompOSE. https://compose.obspm.fr/

    2022

  95. [103]

    Vida\ na I., 2018, @doi [Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A] 10.1098/rspa.2018.0145 , 474, 0145

    2018

  96. [104]

    R., Hanauske M., Rezzolla L., 2020, @doi [Phys

    Weih L. R., Hanauske M., Rezzolla L., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.171103 , 124, 171103

    2020 doi

  97. [105]

    Weissenborn S., Chatterjee D., Schaffner-Bielich J., 2012, @doi [Nuclear Physics A] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2012.02.012 , 881, 62

    2012 doi

  98. [106]

    Yagi K., Yunes N., 2013, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.023009 , 88, 023009

    2013 doi

  99. [107]

    M., Issifu A., Santos L

    da Silva F. M., Issifu A., Santos L. C. N., Frederico T., Menezes D. P., 2025, Hyperons and Deltas in Rotating Protoneutron Stars I: global properties ( @eprint arXiv 2504.05495 )

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.