Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 70 references

The key factor to determine the relation between radius and tidal deformability of neutron stars: slope of symmetry energy

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The slope of symmetry energy controls how neutron-star radius maps to tidal deformability, and the mapping fails for massive stars.

desk verdict Useful but modest parameter scan: L dominance is not new, and the 1.8-solar-mass breakdown needs physical filters before it can be believed. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02274 v1 pith:TNGWD6JG submitted 2019-09-05 nucl-th astro-ph.HE

Nai-Bo Zhang , Bin Qi , Shou-Yu Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstarstidaldeformabilitysymmetryenergyslopeofequationstateradiusdensemattergravitationalwaves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks which piece of nuclear physics decides the observed link between a neutron star's radius and its tidal deformability, the quantity gravitational-wave detectors measure as the star distorts under a companion's pull. Using a parametrized equation of state that lets each nuclear parameter vary independently, the authors find that for a canonical 1.4-solar-mass star the radius–tidal-deformability curve is almost unaffected by the higher-order parameters $K_{\mathrm{sym}}$, $J_{\mathrm{sym}}$, and $J_0$; shifting those parameters moves the star along the same fitted curve. The slope of the symmetry energy, $L$, is the parameter that determines which curve the star sits on. The same relation, however, does not survive for a 1.8-solar-mass star: at those central densities the higher-order terms matter, so the canonical 'universal' relation is broken. If correct, this means a precise measurement of $L$ would pin down the radius–tidal relation for ordinary neutron stars, while massive-star observations cannot be read with the canonical fit.

What carries the argument

The central object is an isospin-dependent parametrized equation of state in which the energy per baryon of symmetric nuclear matter $E_0(\rho)$ and of the symmetry energy $E_{\mathrm{sym}}(\rho)$ are written as third-order Taylor expansions in the density variable $(\rho-\rho_0)/(3\rho_0)$ around the saturation density $\rho_0$. The coefficients are the familiar nuclear parameters: $K_0$ and $J_0$ for symmetric matter, and $L$, $K_{\mathrm{sym}}$, $J_{\mathrm{sym}}$ for the symmetry energy. By fixing the well-known low-density values and letting $L$, $K_{\mathrm{sym}}$, $J_{\mathrm{sym}}$, and $J_0$ vary within their known uncertainties, the paper can map how each parameter moves $R$ and $\Lambda$ in the relation plane. The equations are treated as a free fit with the coefficients determined by observation, which is what allows the systematic study, though it is also the reason high-density extrapolation is delicate.

What would settle it

Compute $R$ and $\Lambda$ for a set of equations of state that include phase transitions or other physics beyond a smooth Taylor expansion (for example quark-matter onset around 2–4 times saturation density) and check whether $1.8\,M_\odot$ stars still fall off the canonical $R\sim\Lambda$ curve. If they do not, the claimed mass dependence is an artifact of the parameterization. Alternatively, a joint measurement of $R_{1.8}$ and $\Lambda_{1.8}$ that lands on the canonical curve would refute the breakdown.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the $R_{1.4}\sim\Lambda_{1.4}$ relation is a one-parameter family controlled by the slope of symmetry energy $L$, with the curvature $K_{\mathrm{sym}}$, skewness $J_{\mathrm{sym}}$, and the skewness $J_0$ of symmetric nuclear matter merely sliding points along the curve. Quantitatively, varying $K_{\mathrm{sym}}$ and $J_{\mathrm{sym}}$ keeps the data within about 5% of the fitted curve, changing $L$ from 30 to 90 MeV moves the curve by about 20%, and adding the $J_0$ freedom contributes only about 2%. For stars of $1.8\,M_\odot$ the relation no longer lies on the canonical curve because the central density is high enough for the higher-order terms to shape the star's structure.

Load-bearing premise

The parametrized equation of state, a third-order Taylor expansion around saturation density, is assumed to describe nuclear matter faithfully even at the central densities of 1.8-solar-mass stars, where the expansion is not guaranteed to converge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A precise measurement of $L$—from heavy-ion collisions, neutron-skin measurements, or astrophysical radii—would fix the $R_{1.4}$ vs $\Lambda_{1.4}$ curve to within the small spread left by the higher-order parameters.
  • The gravitational-wave constraint on $\Lambda_{1.4}$ together with the fitted curve translates directly into a radius range; the paper quotes $9.11 < R_{1.4} < 13.14$ km at the 90% confidence limits from the tidal-deformability band.
  • For a given nuclear parameter set, the $R\sim\Lambda$ curve for $1.0\,M_\odot$ covers a wider range than for $1.4\,M_\odot$, because $\Lambda$ drops steeply with mass.
  • The canonical 'universal' $R\sim\Lambda$ relation fitted at $1.4\,M_\odot$ should not be used to infer radii of massive neutron stars near $1.8\,M_\odot$.
  • If $L$ is the dominant parameter, then any two equations of state with the same $L$ but different high-order parameters should give nearly the same $R_{1.4}$ and $\Lambda_{1.4}$ pair, which is a testable degeneracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's result suggests a two-step inversion that is not spelled out: an accurate $L$ measurement fixes the radius–tidal curve's position, and a single radius or tidal observation then locates where on the curve the star lies, breaking the degeneracy left by the high-order parameters.
  • If real high-density matter undergoes a phase transition (for example to quark matter) that the Taylor expansion cannot represent, the claimed breakdown at $1.8\,M_\odot$ might set in earlier or not at all; checking the $R\sim\Lambda$ relation with equations of state that include phase transitions would directly test the parameterization's reach.
  • The near-universality at $1.4\,M_\odot$ could be restated as an approximate power law $\Lambda_{1.4} \sim (R_{1.4}/R_0)^b$ with exponent $b$ depending only on $L$; the fitted curves shown could be used to extract $L$ from any joint radius–tidal measurement for a canonical star.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the relation between radius R and tidal deformability Lambda of neutron stars at fixed masses (1.0, 1.4, and 1.8 solar masses) using an isospin-dependent parameterized equation of state built from third-order Taylor expansions in density (Eqs. 2-3). The authors vary the symmetry-energy parameters L, Ksym, Jsym and the symmetric-nuclear-matter parameter J0 over ranges chosen from literature constraints, solve the TOV equations and the Hinderer tidal-deformability equation, and then examine how the R-Lambda relation at fixed mass depends on these parameters. They conclude that the slope of the symmetry energy L plays the dominant role in determining the R1.4-Lambda1.4 relation, that the relation is insensitive to Ksym, Jsym, and J0, and that the well-fitted R-Lambda relation for 1.4 solar masses breaks down for 1.8 solar masses. The paper includes comparisons with previously published universal relations and derives a radius constraint R1.4 in 9.11-13.14 km from the GW170817 tidal-deformability bounds.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would provide a simple and practically useful statement: the slope of the symmetry energy L controls the R1.4-Lambda1.4 relation, so precise knowledge of L would pin down the relation without detailed knowledge of higher-order symmetry-energy parameters. The TOV and Hinderer calculations are standard and the qualitative behavior in Figures 1-3 is visible. However, the quantitative claims (5%, 20%, 2% deviations) are not backed by a defined metric or error estimates, the fitted curve parameters are not reported, and the mass-dependence conclusion rests on an unfiltered, uniformly weighted grid of the authors' own parameterized EOS. The significance is therefore conditional on additional quantitative support and robustness checks. The paper is a useful systematic scan of a particular parameterization, but it does not yet establish the universality or the high-mass breakdown at the claimed level of certainty.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Figures 2-3] The claims that variations of Ksym and Jsym produce less than 5% deviation, that varying L from 30 to 90 MeV produces about 20% deviation, and that J0 adds a 2% deviation are not supported by a defined metric. The authors do not state how the deviation is computed (e.g., relative difference in Lambda at fixed R, or area between curves), do not report the fitted curve parameters a and b in Lambda = a R^b, and provide no uncertainties or goodness-of-fit values. These numbers are the quantitative backbone of the L-dominance conclusion, so they must be precisely defined and reported for the claims to be evaluated.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 4] The statement that the R-Lambda relation is 'broken' for massive neutron stars is not quantified. Figure 4 shows scatter for 1.0, 1.4, and 1.8 solar masses, but no fit is shown for any mass, no scatter measure is provided, and there is no statistical comparison of the 1.8 solar-mass points against the 1.4 solar-mass fitted relation. The reader cannot determine whether the breakdown is significant or merely a visual impression. A quantitative measure, such as the rms deviation of each mass set from a common fitted curve, is needed.
  3. [Section 3, acknowledged caveat] The authors themselves note that 'all parameterized EOSs are generated with the same confidence level and the data density is an artificial instead of physical results and dependent on the chosen parameter sets.' Because the parameter grid is treated with equal weight and no causality filter (cs < c) or maximum-mass filter (Mmax >= 1.8 solar masses) is explicitly applied, the larger scatter for 1.8 solar masses may be dominated by acausal or otherwise unphysical EOSs. The mass-dependence conclusion should be re-examined after imposing such physical filters, or the authors should demonstrate explicitly that the scatter is insensitive to them.
  4. [Section 2, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The validity of the third-order Taylor expansion at the central densities of 1.8 solar-mass stars is assumed. The authors note that convergence problems appear with increasing density but proceed by treating the coefficients as free parameters. Since the 'broken relation' for massive stars depends on the high-density behavior of the expansion, the authors should test sensitivity to the truncation order (e.g., adding a fourth-order term in chi) or benchmark the parameterization against a set of realistic EOSs. Without such a test, the breakdown claim may be an artifact of the chosen parameterization rather than a robust property of the nuclear-matter EOS.
  5. [Section 3, J0 analysis] The 2% deviation attributed to the freedom of J0 is computed with J0 = 400 MeV, which lies outside the constrained range (-220 to 200 MeV) cited by the authors themselves in the text. The effect of J0 should be reported for values within the constrained range; as presented, the claim may overstate the physical effect of J0 on the R-Lambda relation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'nuder debate' should be 'under debate', and the title has an unusual spacing in 'F ACTOR'.
  2. [Section 2] The text contains a typo: 'leses constrained' should be 'less constrained'.
  3. [Section 3] The sentence 'the R1.4~Lambda1.4 relation approximately locates at the same fitted curve' is vague; the authors should state the fitting function and the fitted parameters explicitly.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The fitted curve parameters a and b in Lambda = a R^b are not reported anywhere in the text or captions; they should be given for each panel so that the curves can be compared with other universal relations.
  5. [Section 3, Figure 1] The red dots labeled by coordinates representing the constrained upper and lower limits of R1.4 are difficult to read in the figure; the numerical values should be stated in the text as well.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Self-citation carries the high-density validity of the Taylor EOS; L-dominance is model-internal but not definitionally circular.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2, paragraph following Eqs. (2)-(3)]
    "However, as demonstrated in great detail in Zhang et al. (2018), the above equations can still be used to simulate nuclear matter at high density if we see the coefficients as free parameters that should be determined by the observations and the parameterizations naturally become the Taylor expansions when ρ → ρ0."

    The paper's mass-dependence conclusion—that the 1.4 Msun R~Lambda relation is 'broken for massive neutron stars'—rests on the premise that the third-order Taylor parameterization of Eqs. (2)-(3) remains valid up to the central densities of 1.8 Msun stars. That premise is not established by independent data or a first-principles proof; it is justified by citing the authors' own prior work, Zhang et al. 2018, which introduced the same parameterized EOS. The current paper even acknowledges the 'convergence problem' at high density, so the cited 'demonstration' is essentially a self-referential assertion that an ansatz from the same authors' earlier model is transferable.

full rationale

The core derivation is not circular: the paper solves the TOV equations and the Hinderer tidal-deformability equation for each parameterized EOS, then fits R1.4~Lambda1.4 curves. The claim that the slope L dominates the relation is a sensitivity result within the model, not an identity imposed by the input; R and Lambda are distinct computed outputs, and their correlation is an emergent property of the TOV/Hinderer physics plus the EOS. However, the paper's quantitative assertions are weakened by its own caveat in Section 3 (after Figure 1): 'all parameterized EOSs are generated with the same confidence level and the data density is an artificial instead of physical results and dependent on the chosen parameter sets.' This means the 5% versus 20% deviation comparison is grid-dependent and not a physical ensemble average. More importantly, the extension to 1.8 Msun relies on the high-density validity of the Taylor expansion, and that validity is explicitly delegated to the authors' prior work (Zhang et al. 2018) via quotation, which is a load-bearing self-citation rather than an independent check. No step reduces to an identity by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, so the paper is not fundamentally circular; score 4 reflects the load-bearing self-citation while acknowledging the independent TOV/Hinderer content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's conclusions rest on a parameterized EOS with several hand-varied parameters (L, Ksym, Jsym, J0) and fit coefficients, plus the assumption that the Taylor expansion remains valid at high density. No new entities are introduced. The results are therefore conditional on the parameterization spanning the true EOS space.

free parameters (5)
  • L (slope of symmetry energy) = 30, 60, 90 MeV in Figures 2-4; 58.7 MeV in prior work
    The paper's central claim is that L determines the R-Lambda relation; its values are chosen by hand within an uncertainty range, not fitted to data.
  • Ksym (curvature of symmetry energy) = -400 to 100 MeV in steps of 50 MeV
    Varied to test whether the R-Lambda relation is independent of higher-order symmetry energy parameters.
  • Jsym (skewness of symmetry energy) = -200 to 800 MeV in steps of 100 MeV
    Varied to test whether the R-Lambda relation is independent of higher-order symmetry energy parameters.
  • J0 (skewness of symmetric nuclear matter EOS) = 0 and 400 MeV
    Varies the symmetric matter EOS; 400 MeV is outside the previously quoted constraint (-220 to 200 MeV) and is used to magnify effects.
  • Fit coefficients a and b in Lambda_1.4 = a R_1.4^b = not reported
    The fitted curve is central to the claim, but the actual coefficients and goodness-of-fit are not given.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math TOV equations describe hydrostatic equilibrium of neutron stars
    Used in Section 2, Eqs. 5-6, to compute mass and radius.
  • standard math Hinderer's formalism computes tidal deformability from a differential equation coupled to TOV
    Used in Section 2 to compute Lambda; standard in the field.
  • domain assumption The parabolic approximation Eb = E0 + Esym delta^2 is valid for neutron star matter
    Eq. 1, following Bombaci and Lombardo 1991; assumes quadratic isospin dependence.
  • ad hoc to paper The third-order Taylor expansions in Eqs. 2-3 remain valid up to central densities of 1.8 M_sun stars
    The authors acknowledge convergence problems but treat coefficients as free parameters; this is the load-bearing assumption for the mass-dependence claim.
  • ad hoc to paper All parameter sets within the chosen ranges are equally probable representations of the EOS
    The paper states that all parameterized EOSs are generated with the same confidence level and the data density is artificial.
  • domain assumption Crust EOS (BPS/NV) has negligible effect on radius and tidal deformability
    Section 2; relies on Piekarewicz and Fattoyev 2019 and Gamba et al. 2019.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The key factor to determine the relation between radius and tidal deformability of neutron stars: slope of symmetry energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNGWD6JG

@misc{pith2026190902274,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The key factor to determine the relation between radius and tidal deformability of neutron stars: slope of symmetry energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNGWD6JG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02274}
}
abstract

The constraints on tidal deformability $\Lambda$ of neutron stars are first extracted from GW170817 by LIGO and Virgo Collaborations but the relation between radius $R$ and tidal deformability $\Lambda$ is still nuder debate. Using an isospin-dependent parameterized equation of state (EOS), we study the relation between $R$ and $\Lambda$ of neutron stars and its dependence on parameters of symmetry energy $E_{\rm sym}$ and EOS of symmetric nuclear matter $E_0$ when the mass is fixed as $1.4$ $M_\odot$, $1.0$ $M_\odot$, and $1.8$ $M_\odot$, respectively. We find that, though the changes of high order parameters of $E_{\rm sym}$ and $E_0$ can shift the individual values of $R_{1.4}$ and $\Lambda_{1.4}$ to different values, the $R_{1.4}\sim\Lambda_{1.4}$ relation approximately locates at the same fitted curve. The slope of symmetry energy $L$ plays the dominated role in determining the $R_{1.4}\sim\Lambda_{1.4}$ relation. By checking the mass dependence of $R\sim\Lambda$ relation, the well fitted $R\sim\Lambda$ relation for 1.4 $M_\odot$ is broken for massive neutron stars.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 161101

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    2018, PhRvL, 120, 172703

    Annala, E., Gorda, T., Kurkela, A., & Vuorinen, A. 2018, PhRvL, 120, 172703

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    2013, Sci, 340, 448

    Antoniadis, J., et al. 2013, Sci, 340, 448

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    2018, ApJS, 235, 37

    Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 37

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    2017, Ap JL, 850, L34

    Bauswein, A., Just, O., Janka, H., & Stergioulas, N. 2017, Ap JL, 850, L34

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    J., & Sutherland, P

    Baym, G., Pethick, C. J., & Sutherland, P. 1971, ApJ, 170, 299

    work page 1971

  8. [8]

    2019, arXiv:1903.08963

    Baym, G., Furusawa, S., Hatsuda, T., Kojo, T., & Togashi, H. 2019, arXiv:1903.08963

    arXiv 2019

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    O., ¨Ozel, F., & G¨ uver, T

    Bogdanov, S., Heinke, C. O., ¨Ozel, F., & G¨ uver, T. 2016, ApJ, 831, 184

    2016

  2. [10]

    1991, PhRvC, 44, 1892

    Bombaci, I., & Lombardo, U. 1991, PhRvC, 44, 1892

    1991

  3. [11]

    A., & Schwenk, A

    Brown, B. A., & Schwenk, A. 2014, PhRvC, 89, 011307, Erratum: [2015, PhRvC, 91, 049902]

    2014

  4. [12]

    2004, Nucl

    Campana, S., & Stella, L. 2004, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl., 13 2, 427

    2004

  5. [13]

    T., et al

    Cromartie, H. T., et al. 2019, arXiv:1904.06759

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Biwer, C. M. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 091102

    2018

  7. [15]

    B., Pennucci, T., Ransom, S

    Demorest, P. B., Pennucci, T., Ransom, S. M., Roberts, M. S. E., & Hessels, J. W. T. 2010, Natur, 467, 1081

    2010

  8. [16]

    J., Carvajal, J., Newton, W

    Fattoyev, F. J., Carvajal, J., Newton, W. G., & Li, B. A. 2013, PhRvC, 87, 015806

    2013

  9. [17]

    J., Newton, W

    Fattoyev, F. J., Newton, W. G., & Li, B. A. 2014, Eur. Phys. J. A, 50, 45

    2014

  10. [18]

    J., Piekarewicz, J., & Horowitz, C

    Fattoyev, F. J., Piekarewicz, J., & Horowitz, C. J. 2018, PhR vL, 120, 172702

    2018

  11. [19]

    S., & W ade, L

    Gamba, R., Read, J. S., & W ade, L. E. 2019, arXiv:1902.04616 Gendreau K. C., Arzoumanian Z., Okajima T. The Neutron star Interior Composition ExploreR (NICER): An Explorer mission of opportunity for soft x-ray timing spectroscopy[ J]. Proceedings of SPIE - The International S...

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    & Rutledge, R

    Guillot, S. & Rutledge, R. E. 2014, ApJL, 796, L3 Guillot S.s talk in Nusym2016, http://info.phys.tsinghua.edu.cn/enpg/nusym16/htmls/Program.htm

    2014

  13. [21]

    2008, ApJ, 677, 1216

    Hinderer, T. 2008, ApJ, 677, 1216

    2008

  14. [22]

    D., Lang, R

    Hinderer, T., Lackey, B. D., Lang, R. N., & Read, J. S. 2010, PhRvD, 81, 123016

    2010

  15. [23]

    M., Lim, Y., Kwak, K., Hyun, C

    Kim, Y. M., Lim, Y., Kwak, K., Hyun, C. H., & Lee, C. H. 2018, PhRvC, 98, 065805

    2018

  16. [24]

    2004, PhRvC, 70, 065804

    Kubis, S. 2004, PhRvC, 70, 065804

    2004

  17. [25]

    2007, PhRvC, 76, 025801

    Kubis, S. 2007, PhRvC, 76, 025801

    2007

  18. [26]

    M., & Prakash, M

    Lattimer, J. M., & Prakash, M. 2000, PhR, 333, 121

    2000

  19. [27]

    M., & Prakash, M

    Lattimer, J. M., & Prakash, M. 2001, ApJ, 550, 426

    2001

  20. [28]

    M., & Prakash, M

    Lattimer, J. M., & Prakash, M. 2007, PhR, 442, 109

    2007

  21. [29]

    M., & Steiner, A

    Lattimer, J. M., & Steiner, A. W. 2014, Eur. Phys. J. A, 50, 40

    2014

  22. [30]

    A., & Steiner, A

    Li, B. A., & Steiner, A. W. 2006, Phys. Lett. B, 642, 436

    2006

  23. [31]

    A., & Han, X

    Li, B. A., & Han, X. 2013, Phys. Lett. B, 727, 276

    2013

  24. [32]

    Li, B. A. 2017, Nuclear Physics News, 27, 7

    2017

  25. [33]

    A., Krastev, P

    Li, B. A., Krastev, P. G., W en, D. H., & Zhang, N. B. 2019, Eur. Phys. J. A, 55, 117

    2019

  26. [34]

    Lim, Y., & Holt, J. W. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 062701 Louren¸ co, O., Dutra, M., Lenzi, C. H., Flores, C. V., & Menez es, D. P. 2019, PhRvC, 99, 045202 Louren¸ co, O., Dutra, M., Lenzi, C. H., Biswa, S. K., Bhuyan, M., & Menezes, D. P. 2019b, arXiv:1901.04529

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    K., Kumar, B., & Patra, S

    Jha, T. K., Kumar, B., & Patra, S. K. 2018, PhRvC, 98, 035804

    2018

  28. [36]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 850, L19

    2017

  29. [37]

    2011, Astrophys

    Mereghetti, S. 2011, Astrophys. Space Sci. Proc., 21, 345

    2011

  30. [38]

    C., & Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., & Lamb, F. K. 2016, Eur. Phys. J. A, 52, 63

    2016

  31. [39]

    R., W eih, L

    Most, E. R., W eih, L. R., Rezzolla, L., & Schaffner-Bielich, J . 2018, PhRvL, 120, 261103

    2018

  32. [40]

    2019, PhRvC, 99, 052802 N¨ attil¨ a, J., Miller, M

    Nandi, R., Char, P., & Pal, S. 2019, PhRvC, 99, 052802 N¨ attil¨ a, J., Miller, M. C., Steiner, A. W., Kajava, J. J. E. ,

    2019

  33. [41]

    F., & Poutanen, J

    Suleimanov, V. F., & Poutanen, J. 2017, A&A, 608, A31

    2017

  34. [42]

    W., & Vautherin, D

    Negele, J. W., & Vautherin, D. 1973, NuPhA, 207, 298

    1973

  35. [43]

    2017, Rev

    Oertel, M., Hempel, M., Kl¨ ahn, T., & Typel, S. 2017, Rev. Mod . Phys., 89, 015007

    2017

  36. [44]

    1939, Phys

    Oppenheimer, J., & Volkoff, G. 1939, Phys. Rev., 55, 374 ¨Ozel, F. 2013, Rep. Prog. Phys., 76, 016901 ¨Ozel, F., Psaltis, D., G¨ uver, T., Baym, G., Heinke, C., & Gui llot, S. 2016, ApJ, 820, 28

    1939

  37. [45]

    Piekarewicz, J. 2010, J. Phys. G, 37, 064038

    2010

  38. [46]

    Proceedings of the XIV International W orks hop on Hadron Physics, Florian´ opolis, 18-23 March 2018 pages 12-37, arXiv:1805.04780

    Piekarewicz, J. Proceedings of the XIV International W orks hop on Hadron Physics, Florian´ opolis, 18-23 March 2018 pages 12-37, arXiv:1805.04780

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Piekarewicz, J., & Fattoyev, F. J. 2019, PhRvC, 99, 045802

    2019

  40. [48]

    2019, Eur

    Radice, D., & Dai, L. 2019, Eur. Phys. J. A, 55, 50

    2019

  41. [49]

    A., ¨Ozel, F., & Psaltis, D

    Raithel, C. A., ¨Ozel, F., & Psaltis, D. 2018, ApJL, 857, L23

    2018

  42. [50]

    Raithel, C. A. 2019, Eur. Phys. J. A, 55, 80

    2019

  43. [51]

    R., & W eih, L

    Rezzolla, L., Most, E. R., & W eih, L. R. 2018, ApJ, 852, L25

    2018

  44. [52]

    L., & Tsokaros, A

    Ruiz, M., Shapiro, S. L., & Tsokaros, A. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 021501(R)

    2018

  45. [53]

    W., et al

    Shaw, A. W., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4713

    2018

  46. [54]

    2017, PhRvD, 96, 123012

    Kyutoku, K., Sekiguchi, Y., & Tanaka, M. 2017, PhRvD, 96, 123012

    2017

  47. [55]

    2019, PhRvD, 100, 023015

    Shibata, M., Zhou, E., Kiuchi, K., & Fujibayashi, S. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 023015

    2019

  48. [56]

    M., & Col` o G

    Shlomo, S., Kolomietz, V. M., & Col` o G. 2006, Eur. Phys. J. A, 30, 23 7

    2006

  49. [57]

    W., Lattimer, J

    Steiner, A. W., Lattimer, J. M., & Brown, E. F. 2013, ApJL, 765 L5

    2013

  50. [58]

    F.,Poutanen, J., Klochkov, D., & W erner, K

    Suleimanov, V. F.,Poutanen, J., Klochkov, D., & W erner, K. 2016, Eur. Phys. J. A, 52, 20

    2016

  51. [59]

    M., Ohnishi, A., & Kolomeitsev, E

    Tews, I., Lattimer, J. M., Ohnishi, A., & Kolomeitsev, E. E. 2017, ApJ, 848, 105

    2017

  52. [60]

    2018, PhRvC, 98, 045804

    Tews, I., Margueron, J., & Reddy, S. 2018, PhRvC, 98, 045804

    2018

  53. [61]

    Tolman, R. C. 1934, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 20, 3

    1934

  54. [62]

    W., Meng, J

    Tong, H., Zhao, P. W., Meng, J. 2019, arXiv:1903.05938

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Y., Tsang, M

    Tsang, C. Y., Tsang, M. B., Pawel Danielewics, & Lynch, W. G. 2019, arXiv:1905.02601

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    W., Li, B

    Xu, J, Chen, L. W., Li, B. A., & Ma, H. R. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1549

    2009

  57. [65]

    B., Cai, B

    Zhang, N. B., Cai, B. J., Li, B. A., Newton, W. G., & Xu, J. 2017, Nucl. Sci. Tech., 28, 181

    2017

  58. [66]

    B., Li, B

    Zhang, N. B., Li, B. A. & Xu, J. 2018, ApJ, 859, 90

    2018

  59. [67]

    B., & Li, B

    Zhang, N. B., & Li, B. A. 2019, Eur. Phys. J. A, 55, 39

    2019

  60. [68]

    Q., & Lattimer, J

    Zhao, T. Q., & Lattimer, J. M. 2018 PhRvD, 98, 063020

    2018

  61. [69]

    P., Zhou, X., & Li, A

    Zhou, E. P., Zhou, X., & Li, A. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 083015

    2018

  62. [70]

    W., & Zhang, Z

    Zhou, Y., Chen, L. W., & Zhang, Z. 2019, PhRvD, 99, 121301

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.