Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

The choice between the Dirac and Landau nucleon effective masses shifts neutron-star cooling predictions by 0.03–0.06 dex in surface temperature, an ambiguity most simulations ignore.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-07-31 23:57 UTC pith:T4ET4OY4

load-bearing objection A useful sensitivity study showing effective-mass definitions can shift NS cooling curves, but the central Dirac-vs-Landau comparison is under-derived: the Dirac-mass emissivity branch is likely unphysical. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23253 v1 pith:T4ET4OY4 submitted 2026-07-25 hep-th

On the Nucleon Effective Mass in Neutron Stars Cooling

Yuuki Sugiyama , Akira Dohi This is my paper
classification hep-th PACS 97.60.Jd26.60.-c
keywords neutron star coolingeffective nucleon massDirac massLandau massrelativistic mean-field theoryWalecka modelneutrino emissivitydirect Urca process
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 paper argues that neutron-star cooling calculations carry a systematic uncertainty that most simulations ignore: which of two definitions of the nucleon effective mass is inserted into the neutrino-emissivity formulas. In a relativistic mean-field (Walecka) description, the Dirac mass — the in-medium mass reduced by the scalar meson field — falls with density, while the Landau mass — Fermi momentum divided by Fermi velocity — rises at high density. Feeding these two prescriptions into the standard emissivities for neutron-neutron bremsstrahlung and the direct Urca process changes the predicted surface temperature of a 1.4–2.0 solar-mass neutron star by roughly 0.03–0.06 dex, comparable to or larger than the observational error on well-studied cooling neutron stars. The paper checks this with two realistic equations of state that differ only in effective-mass properties and finds broadly the same behavior. The authors note that other cooling uncertainties may be larger, but effective masses are among the hardest to constrain experimentally, so the ambiguity should be folded into any cooling-based constraint on dense matter.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Dirac mass and the Landau mass are physically distinct effective masses in relativistic mean-field models, and that the choice between them changes neutron-star cooling predictions at a level that matters for observations. In the Walecka model the Dirac mass m_D = m_ψ − g_σ σ falls with density, while the Landau mass m_L = (k_F^2 + m_D^2)^{1/2} = k_F/v_F rises at high density because the Fermi momentum grows. The standard emissivities for neutron-neutron bremsstrahlung and the direct Urca process, evaluated with one mass or the other, produce cooling curves that differ by roughly 0.03–0.06 dex in surface temperature for 1.4–2.0 solar-mass stars, with the Landau-

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is m_L = k_F / v_F = sqrt(k_F^2 + m_D^2), which ties the quasiparticle dispersion at the Fermi surface to the density of states D(ε) = k_F^2/(π^2 v_F) = 3 m_L n / k_F^2 and thus to the specific heat c_V = π^2 T m_L n / k_F^2. Because the same Landau mass controls the heat capacity on the left side of the cooling equation and the neutrino-emissivity prefactors on the right side (scaling as m*^4 for bremsstrahlung and as m*_N m*_p for direct Urca), swapping m_D and m_L changes both sides of the cooling equation at high density. The Dirac mass, by contrast, is the scalar-mean-field-modified mass term m_D = m_ψ − g_σ σ, which decreases with density. The paper pushes bot

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats m_D and m_L as interchangeable plug-ins for m*_N in the non-relativistic emissivity formulas (Sec. III A) without deriving from the Lagrangian which one the phase-space factors actually require; if only one prescription is physical, the claimed 0.03–0.06 dex uncertainty is not a band but an error in one of the two curves.

What would settle it

Derive the non-relativistic neutron-neutron bremsstrahlung emissivity from the Walecka Lagrangian to leading order in 1/m_ψ and read off whether the prefactor is m_D or m_L; if the prefactor is m_D, the faster-cooling Landau-mass curves in the paper are unphysical and the claimed systematic uncertainty collapses to whichever mass actually appears.

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

If this is right

  • Cooling curves computed with the Landau mass cool faster than those computed with the Dirac mass, and the gap widens as neutron-star mass increases.
  • The effective-mass ambiguity shifts predicted surface temperatures by about 0.03 dex for a 1.4-solar-mass star and about 0.06 dex for a 2.0-solar-mass star, comparable to or larger than the observational error on well-studied cooling neutron stars.
  • Below the direct-Urca threshold the effect still appears through the slow neutron-neutron bremsstrahlung channel, whose emissivity scales with the fourth power of the chosen effective mass.
  • The effect persists with realistic relativistic mean-field equations of state that differ only in effective-mass properties, so it is not an artifact of the simple Walecka model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A first-principles reduction of the bremsstrahlung and direct-Urca matrix elements from the Walecka Lagrangian would likely single out one of the two masses; if it is uniquely the Landau mass, the paper's 0.03–0.06 dex band is an upper envelope of prescription choices, not a symmetric statistical error.
  • The same two-mass distinction should enter other Fermi-surface quantities — thermal conductivity, shear viscosity, and superfluid pairing gaps — so the effective-mass ambiguity may also affect neutron-star thermal relaxation, r-mode damping, and pulsar-timing glitch modeling, not just cooling curves.
  • Because the Dirac/Landau gap grows with density, a single precisely observed cooling sequence of a neutron star near the maximum mass would discriminate between the prescriptions more sharply than the current ensemble of lower-mass cooling stars.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the role of the nucleon effective mass in neutron-star cooling, focusing on the difference between the Dirac mass m_D and the Landau mass m_L in relativistic mean-field (Walecka) models. The authors derive m_D and m_L at finite temperature, show that m_L = sqrt(k_F^2 + m_D^2), and obtain the low-temperature specific heat c_V proportional to m_L. They then evaluate standard neutrino emissivities for neutron-neutron bremsstrahlung and direct Urca processes by substituting either m_D or m_L for the effective nucleon mass, solve isothermal cooling equations, and perform NSCool simulations with the TM1e and TM1m equations of state. The central claim is that the choice between Dirac and Landau effective masses is a non-negligible systematic uncertainty in neutron-star cooling, changing predicted surface temperatures by roughly 0.03-0.06 dex for 1.4-2.0 solar-mass stars.

Significance. If the central comparison were justified, the result would be valuable: many cooling codes use a single effective mass without distinguishing Dirac and Landau definitions, and the paper offers a clean RMF derivation showing that the two masses differ substantially at high density. The low-temperature expansion and the derivation of c_V proportional to the Landau mass are sound and clearly presented. The use of the public NSCool code and two realistic EOS models is a welcome check on the simplified Walecka-model results. However, the load-bearing step — evaluating imported emissivity formulas with either m_D or m_L as interchangeable 'prescriptions' — is not derived from the underlying microphysics. If only one of the two masses is the correct input for those formulas, the claimed uncertainty is an artifact, not a physical systematic effect. The qualitative direction of the effect is also forced by the algebraic relation m_L > m_D, so the paper's quantitative claim is not yet secured.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A, Eq. (36) and the sentence 'In the numerical comparison below, we evaluate this expression using either m*_N] This is the central issue. The paper never derives from the Walecka Lagrangian which effective mass enters the non-relativistic bremsstrahlung emissivity. In the RMF framework, the quasiparticle dispersion near the Fermi surface is governed by v_F = k_F/m_L (Eq. 14), and the density of states and specific heat are controlled by m_L (Eqs. 30-31). The non-relativistic emissivity Eq. (36) is a standard Fermi-liquid result; its m*^4 factor is the quasiparticle mass, i.e. the Landau mass. Substituting m_D into that factor is therefore not an alternative prescription but a category error. Moreover, the cooling curves labeled 'Dirac' in Fig. 2 combine an emissivity evaluated with m_D with a heat capacity evaluated with m_L, so they are internally inconsistent. As a result, the claimed 0.03-0.06 dex systematic uncertainty is not established by the calculation. The authors must either derive the
  2. [Sec. III A, Eqs. (41)-(42)] The same problem appears in the direct Urca treatment. The paper states that m*_N and m*_p in the DU emissivity 'are identified with' either Landau or Dirac masses, but it does not derive which identification is correct. In the relativistic formula Eq. (41), the single-particle energies ϵ_n and ϵ_p already contain m_D, and the role of the m*_N m*_p term must be established from the weak-current matrix element and the phase-space integral. If m* in the Leinson formula is the Dirac mass, then the Landau branch is unphysical; if m* is the Landau mass, then the Dirac branch is unphysical. The non-relativistic reduction Eq. (42) differs by a factor (m_L/m_D)^2 between the two prescriptions, so this is not a harmless ambiguity. A derivation, not a choice, is needed before these curves can be interpreted as a physical uncertainty. The same criticism applies to the NSCool runs in Sec. III B that
  3. [Sec. III A and Conclusion] Even if both mass prescriptions were taken at face value, the qualitative result would be a mathematical consequence of Eq. (15): m_L = sqrt(k_F^2 + m_D^2) > m_D, and all emissivities increase with the effective mass. Thus the statement that 'uncertainties in the effective masses provide a non-negligible contribution to the systematic uncertainty' requires demonstrating that the community actually uses both definitions, or that the correct mass cannot be fixed by existing many-body theory. The paper does not provide such evidence. The TM1e/TM1m comparison is a legitimate model-parameter uncertainty, but it concerns the value of the Dirac mass at saturation, not the Dirac-Landau definitional ambiguity. The paper should separate these two distinct claims and either derive the correct mass or substantially weaken the conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 and text after it] The text says 'Panel (a) denotes the temperature evolution ... while panel (b) shows E_NN normalized by m_psi^3/T^8', but the panels are reversed: panel (a) is the emissivity and panel (b) is the temperature. Also, the sentence 'using the Landau mass enhances the emissivity ... and results in a slower decrease of the temperature' appears to be wrong: a larger emissivity with c_V ∝ m_L gives a cooling rate ∝ m_L^3, so the Landau mass should cool faster (steeper temperature decrease), not slower.
  2. [Sec. II C] There is a typo: 'Compared to the Laudau mass' should read 'Landau mass'.
  3. [Sec. III A] The phrase 'somehow theoretical treatment' is awkward and should be rephrased.
  4. [Sec. III A, Eq. (41)] The step in which the neutron and proton masses are assumed equal (m*_N = m*_p = m_D) should be stated more prominently; this is an approximation that may not be justified for neutron-rich matter, where the proton fraction is small.
  5. [Table I] The entry 'C Cabibbo factor' is ambiguous; please write, e.g., 'Cabibbo factor C' or define C explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the effective-mass sensitivity study is transparent and externally benchmarked; the m_D/m_L split is a definitional model input, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter to the cooling curves it later reports, and it does not rely on load-bearing self-citations. The Walecka-model masses are defined from the mean-field Lagrangian (m_D=m_psi-g_sigma sigma; m_L=k_F/v_F=sqrt(k_F^2+m_D^2), Eq. 15), and c_V proportional to m_L is derived from the low-temperature density of states (Eqs. 30-31), not assumed. The emissivity formulas are imported from independent literature (Friman-Maxwell/Yakovlev for bremsstrahlung, Leinson-Perez for direct Urca), and the authors explicitly flag that they evaluate them with either mass prescription: 'In the numerical comparison below, we evaluate this expression using either m*_N=m_D or m*_N=m_L.' This is a transparent sensitivity test, not a hidden reduction. The quantitative cooling comparison uses external EOS models (TM1e/TM1m) and the public NSCool code, so the reported 0.03-0.06 dex surface-temperature spread is not contained in the definition of m_L alone. The main scientific weakness—whether the Landau or Dirac mass is the physically correct mass to insert into the non-relativistic emissivity formulas—is an unproven assumption, not a circularity; the paper never derives that both prescriptions are equally physical. That concern belongs to correctness/model risk rather than to the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on standard RMF and Fermi-liquid assumptions, with two EOS-based couplings and fixed particle fractions as hand-chosen inputs. No new particles or entities are introduced. The main structural reliance is on importing emissivity formulas from prior literature without re-deriving which effective mass appears.

free parameters (3)
  • Scalar coupling C_σ^2 = 7.160 and 11.437
    Taken from Table 1 of Ref. [10] to mimic TM1m and TM1e EOS; originally fitted to nuclear saturation properties. The two values bracket the effective-mass uncertainty and drive the Walecka-model cooling differences.
  • Fixed particle fractions Y_p=Y_e, Y_n = Y_p=Y_e=0.2, Y_n=0.8
    Ad hoc choice in Sec. III A to ensure the direct Urca threshold is satisfied over the plotted range; not beta-equilibrium self-consistent.
  • Effective-mass prescription = m*_N = m_D or m_L
    The paper deliberately varies whether Dirac or Landau mass enters emissivity formulas; treated as the object of study rather than a fit, but it is a hand-chosen binary that the central claim rests on.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Relativistic mean-field approximation: meson fields replaced by constant expectation values
    Sec. II A, Eq. (2); neglects meson fluctuations, standard for Walecka model.
  • domain assumption Low-temperature expansion of Fermi-Dirac distribution (T/ε_F << 1) and Fermi-liquid form c_V ∝ T
    Sec. II B, Eq. (23); appropriate for NS cores but an approximation.
  • domain assumption Isothermal core cooling equation c_V dT/dt = -E_ν
    Sec. III, Eq. (35); assumes rapid thermal relaxation, valid for older NSs.
  • domain assumption Standard emissivity formulas (36), (41), (42) from Friman-Maxwell and Leinson-Pérez
    Sec. III A; the paper relies on these literature results rather than deriving them from the Walecka Lagrangian.
  • standard math Landau mass definition m_L = k_F/v_F
    Sec. II A, Eq. (13); standard Fermi-liquid definition.
  • ad hoc to paper Charge neutrality and fixed particle fractions in the Walecka model
    Sec. III A; Y_p=0.2 fixed for all densities to open DU channel.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18244 in / 20526 out tokens · 164869 ms · 2026-07-31T23:57:21.345781+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The cooling of neutrons stars, which are composed of ultra-high-density nuclear matter, strongly depends on the equation of state because the dominant cooling sources are neutrinos produced in their interiors. Here, we investigate the cooling properties of neutron stars, focusing on effective nucleon masses, whose impacts have been recently examined in supernova explosion and proto-neutron star cooling. The uncertainties of effective masses originate from the difference in the attractive interaction of scalar meson and the definition of the Dirac and Landau masses. At first, we employ so-called Walecka models that allow these two masses to be introduced within a unified framework and evaluate the resulting cooling curves. Based on the Walecka model, we compute the emissivity of the neutrons and the direct Urca process and their cooling curves. We demonstrate that the Dirac and Landau masses affect cooling of massive neutron stars, although most previous cooling simulations do not distinguish them. We also perform cooling simulations with two realistic equation of states based on relativistic mean-field (RMF) theory, whose differences arise from properties of only effective masses among characteristic parameters. These results are broadly consistent with those obtained from the Walecka models, indicating that the treatment of effective nucleon masses may be an important source of uncertainty in neutron-star cooling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23253 by Akira Dohi, Yuuki Sugiyama.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Behaviors of the Dirac mass and the Landau mass. We adopted the temperatures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Slow cooling example based on neutron-neutron bremsstrahlung. (a) Neutron-neutron bremsstrahlung emissivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Fast cooling example based on the nucleon direct Urca process. (a) Direct-Urca emissivity divided by the temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Baryon Fermi-wave number density dependence of some quantities: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Cooling curves with different treatments of EOS models, effective masses, and emissivity of the DU process. Note [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.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

49 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Sinha and V

    M. Sinha and V. B. Thapa, Dense matter and compact stars in strong magnetic fields, Universe12, 122 (2026). 16

    2026

  2. [2]

    Tsuruta and A

    S. Tsuruta and A. G. W. Cameron, Cooling and detectability of neutron stars, Canadian Journal of Physics44, 1863 (1966)

    1966

  3. [3]

    D. G. Yakovlev and C. J. Pethick, Neutron Star Cooling, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophy.42, 169 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0402143 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2004

  4. [4]

    Page and S

    D. Page and S. Reddy, Dense Matter in Compact Stars: Theoretical Developments and Observational Constraints, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science56, 327 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0608360 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    G. F. Burgio, H.-J. Schulze, I. Vida˜ na, and J.-B. Wei, Neutron stars and the nuclear equation of state, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics120, 103879 (2021), arXiv:2105.03747 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Li, B.-J

    B.-A. Li, B.-J. Cai, L.-W. Chen, and J. Xu, Nucleon effective masses in neutron-rich matter, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics99, 29 (2018), arXiv:1801.01213 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    A. S. Schneider, L. F. Roberts, C. D. Ott, and E. O’Connor, Equation of state effects in the core collapse of a 20 -M ⊙ star, Phys. Rev. C100, 055802 (2019), arXiv:1906.02009 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Yasin, S

    H. Yasin, S. Sch¨ afer, A. Arcones, and A. Schwenk, Equation of State Effects in Core-Collapse Supernovae, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 092701 (2020), arXiv:1812.02002 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Nakazato and H

    K. Nakazato and H. Suzuki, Cooling Timescale for Protoneutron Stars and Properties of Nuclear Matter: Effective Mass and Symmetry Energy at High Densities, Astrophys. J.878, 25 (2019), arXiv:1905.00014 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    S. Li, J. Pang, H. Shen, J. Hu, and K. Sumiyoshi, Influence of Effective Nucleon Mass on Equation of State for Supernova Simulations and Neutron Stars, Astrophys. J.980, 54 (2025), arXiv:2407.18739 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Matsuki, S

    T. Matsuki, S. Furusawa, K. Sumiyoshi, H. Shen, and K. Suzuki, Impact of Effective Nucleon Mass and Multineutron States on the Equation of State for Core-Collapse Supernovae, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2604.11431 (2026), arXiv:2604.11431 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Kim, C.-H

    M. Kim, C.-H. Lee, Y.-M. Kim, K. Kwak, Y. Lim, and C. H. Hyun, Neutron star equations of state and their applications, International Journal of Modern Physics E29, 2030007 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Walecka, A theory of highly condensed matter, Annals of Physics83, 491 (1974)

    J. Walecka, A theory of highly condensed matter, Annals of Physics83, 491 (1974)

    1974

  14. [14]

    J. D. Walecka, Theoretical nuclear and subnuclear physics (World Scientific Publishing Company, 2004)

    2004

  15. [15]

    N. K. Glendenning, Compact stars: Nuclear physics, particle physics, and general relativity (1997)

    1997

  16. [16]

    Papazoglou, J

    P. Papazoglou, J. Schaffner, S. Schramm, D. Zschiesche, H. St¨ ocker, and W. Greiner, Phase transition in the chiralσ-ω model with dilatons, Phys. Rev. C55, 1499 (1997)

    1997

  17. [17]

    J. I. Kapusta and C. Gale, Finite-temperature field theory: Principles and applications, Cambridge Monographs on Math- ematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  18. [18]

    Cavagnoli and M

    R. Cavagnoli and M. B. Pinto, Radiatively induced non linearity in the walecka model, Brazilian Journal of Physics40, 432–442 (2010)

    2010

  19. [19]

    Typel, Relativistic model for nuclear matter and atomic nuclei with momentum-dependent self-energies, Phys

    S. Typel, Relativistic model for nuclear matter and atomic nuclei with momentum-dependent self-energies, Phys. Rev. C 71, 064301 (2005)

    2005

  20. [20]

    Typel, G

    S. Typel, G. R¨ opke, T. Kl¨ ahn, D. Blaschke, and H. H. Wolter, Composition and thermodynamics of nuclear matter with light clusters, Phys. Rev. C81, 015803 (2010)

    2010

  21. [21]

    Schmitt, Dense Matter in Compact Stars (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010)

    A. Schmitt, Dense Matter in Compact Stars (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010)

    2010

  22. [22]

    P´ osfay, G

    P. P´ osfay, G. G. Barnaf¨ oldi, and A. Jakov´ ac, Estimating the values and variations of neutron star observables by dense nuclear matter properties (2022), arXiv:2004.08230 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Baldo and G

    M. Baldo and G. F. Burgio, Properties of the nuclear medium, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 026301 (2012)

    2012

  24. [24]

    Friman and W

    B. Friman and W. Weise, Neutron star matter as a relativistic fermi liquid, Phys. Rev. C100, 065807 (2019)

    2019

  25. [25]

    M. G. Alford, L. Brodie, A. Haber, and I. Tews, Relativistic mean-field theories for neutron-star physics based on chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C106, 055804 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    Zhang and M

    X. Zhang and M. Prakash, Hot and dense matter beyond relativistic mean field theory, Phys. Rev. C93, 055805 (2016)

    2016

  27. [27]

    Chamseddine, J

    M. Chamseddine, J. Margueron, G. Chanfray, H. Hansen, and R. Somasundaram, Relativistic hartree–fock chi- ral lagrangians with confinement, nucleon finite size and short-range effects, The European Physical Journal A59, 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01089-2 (2023)

    doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01089-2 2023

  28. [28]

    F. Alp, Y. Dietz, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Equation of state and fermi liquid properties of dense matter based on chiral effective field theory interactions, Phys. Rev. C112, 055802 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    D. Page, J. M. Lattimer, M. Prakash, and A. W. Steiner, Minimal cooling of neutron stars: A new paradigm, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series155, 623–650 (2004)

    2004

  30. [30]

    M. I. Gresham and K. M. Zurek, Asymmetric dark stars and neutron star stability, Phys. Rev. D99, 083008 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    R. C. Tolman, Static Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equations for Spheres of Fluid, Physical Review55, 364 (1939)

    1939

  32. [32]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, On Massive Neutron Cores, Physical Review55, 374 (1939)

    1939

  33. [33]

    J. M. Lattimer, K. A. van Riper, M. Prakash, and M. Prakash, Rapid Cooling and the Structure of Neutron Stars, Astrophys. J.425, 802 (1994)

    1994

  34. [34]

    O. Y. Gnedin, D. G. Yakovlev, and A. Y. Potekhin, Thermal relaxation in young neutron stars, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.324, 725 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0012306 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  35. [35]

    B. L. Friman and O. V. Maxwell, Neutrino emissivities of neutron stars., Astrophys. J.232, 541 (1979)

    1979

  36. [36]

    Yakovlev, Neutrino emission from neutron stars, Physics Reports354, 1–155 (2001)

    D. Yakovlev, Neutrino emission from neutron stars, Physics Reports354, 1–155 (2001)

    2001

  37. [37]

    Leinson and A

    L. Leinson and A. P´ erez, Relativistic direct urca processes in cooling neutron stars, Physics Letters B518, 15–22 (2001)

    2001

  38. [38]

    Leinson, Direct urca processes on nucleons in cooling neutron stars, Nuclear Physics A707, 543–560 (2002)

    L. Leinson, Direct urca processes on nucleons in cooling neutron stars, Nuclear Physics A707, 543–560 (2002)

    2002

  39. [39]

    Page, NSCool: Neutron star cooling code, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1609.009 (2016), ascl:1609.009

    D. Page, NSCool: Neutron star cooling code, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1609.009 (2016), ascl:1609.009. 17

    2016

  40. [40]

    H. Shen, F. Ji, J. Hu, and K. Sumiyoshi, Effects of Symmetry Energy on the Equation of State for Simulations of Core- collapse Supernovae and Neutron-star Mergers, Astrophys. J.891, 148 (2020), arXiv:2001.10143 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    A. Dohi, H. Liu, T. Noda, and M.-A. Hashimoto, Cooling of isolated neutron stars with pion condensation: Possible fast cooling in a low-symmetry energy model, International Journal of Modern Physics E31, 2250006 (2022), arXiv:2112.13302 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    H. Shen, H. Toki, K. Oyamatsu, and K. Sumiyoshi, Relativistic equation of state of nuclear matter for supernova and neutron star, Nucl. Phys. A637, 435 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9805035 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  43. [43]

    H. Shen, H. Toki, K. Oyamatsu, and K. Sumiyoshi, Relativistic Equation of State of Nuclear Matter for Supernova Explosion, Progress of Theoretical Physics100, 1013 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9806095 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  44. [44]

    H. T. Cromartie, E. Fonseca, S. M. Ransom, P. B. Demorest, Z. Arzoumanian, H. Blumer, P. R. Brook, M. E. DeCesar, T. Dolch, J. A. Ellis, R. D. Ferdman, E. C. Ferrara, N. Garver-Daniels, P. A. Gentile, M. L. Jones, M. T. Lam, D. R. Lorimer, R. S. Lynch, M. A. McLaughlin, C. Ng, D. J. Nice, T. T. Pennucci, R. Spiewak, I. H. Stairs, K. Stovall, J. K. Swiggum...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewenstein, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, M. T. Wolff, C. L. Baker, T. Cazeau, S. Manthripragada, C. B. Markwardt, T. Okajima, S. Pollard, I. Cognard, H. T. Cromartie, E. Fonseca, L. Guillemot, M. Kerr, A. Parthasarathy, T. T. Pe...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Posselt and G

    B. Posselt and G. G. Pavlov, Upper Limits on the Rapid Cooling of the Central Compact Object in Cas A, Astrophys. J. 864, 135 (2018), arXiv:1808.00531 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Garani, M

    R. Garani, M. H. G. Tytgat, and J. Vandecasteele, Condensed dark matter with a yukawa interaction, Phys. Rev. D106, 116003 (2022)

    2022

  48. [48]

    Typel and H

    S. Typel and H. Wolter, Relativistic mean field calculations with density-dependent meson-nucleon coupling, Nuclear Physics A656, 331 (1999)

    1999

  49. [49]

    Velikanov, A

    M. Velikanov, A. N. Rubtsov, and B. Krippa, Proton fraction in neutron star matter: dynamical mean-field approach, New Journal of Physics23, 033015 (2021)

    2021