Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Pair luminosity from newborn strange stars is set by surface temperature alone, not by the quark phase, and dies out within a second.

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

2026-08-01 01:33 UTC pith:TWNFLGNT

load-bearing objection Genuine follow-up extending the authors' earlier unpaired-quark cooling model to 2SC and CFL phases, but an unspecified positron Lorentz factor in Eq. (11) scales every pair-luminosity number, including the abstract's 10^46 erg/s cap. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25766 v1 pith:TWNFLGNT submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Pair luminosity and cooling of newborn strange star: Color-flavor-locked and two-flavor color superconducting quarks

Mikalai Prakapenia , Cheng-Jun Xia , Gregory Vereshchagin This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE hep-ph
keywords strange starscolor superconductivityCFL phase2SC phaseSchwinger pair productionelectrosphereneutrino coolingcompact object cooling
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.

This paper argues that when a newborn strange star's surface is hot enough to create electron-positron pairs by the Schwinger process, the resulting luminosity depends only on the surface temperature, not on whether the quark matter is in the 2SC or CFL color-superconducting phase (for quark chemical potentials above 280 MeV). Because the surface cools faster than the interior in every phase, this pair luminosity falls quickly and stays below 10^46 erg/s one second after formation. Neutrino emission from the bulk dominates the pair wind in all cases except CFL matter with a large pairing gap, where neutrinos are strongly suppressed and pairs can briefly outshine them. The total energy radiated in pairs never exceeds the neutrino energy, but the two become comparable for large gap parameters. If correct, pair emission from strange-star surfaces is a short-lived, phase-independent early signal whose strength can be read off a single fit formula.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Schwinger pair luminosity from the electrosphere of a strange star is a universal function of temperature for μ_q > 280 MeV, independent of whether the quark matter is in the 2SC or CFL phase. This universality is traced to the depletion of strange quarks at the surface, which sets up a thin electron layer whose structure is essentially the same in both phases when the difference in quark chemical potentials is neglected. The paper derives a fit L_Schwinger = 10^48 (R/10 km)^2 (T/1 MeV)^4.75 exp(-T/6 MeV) exp(-0.9 MeV/T) erg/s, and combines it with thermal-conduction and neutrino-emissivity models to follow cooling over the first second. The quantitative

What carries the argument

The electrosphere, a thin surface layer of electrons extending a few hundred fermis beyond the quark surface, supported by depletion of strange quarks and held by a supercritical electric field, is the central object. The Poisson equation for the electron chemical potential, the s-quark depletion formula with μ_s = μ_q imposed for both phases, and the Schwinger pair-production rate with Pauli blocking combine into the universal fit formula. This sets the surface boundary condition for the heat-transfer equation, with bulk neutrino emissivities controlling interior cooling.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes the CFL surface carries the same thin electron layer as the 2SC surface; the paper imposes this by setting the strange-quark chemical potential equal to the quark chemical potential in both phases, an assumption it acknowledges is disputed.

What would settle it

A self-consistent calculation of the CFL surface that uses the phase-dependent strange-quark chemical potential and allows for the absence of a thin electron layer (as one cited work argues) would settle it: if the CFL electrosphere differs measurably or does not exist, the universal luminosity curve and the CFL pair-dominance branch fail. Observationally, a newborn strange star whose pair wind is inferred from an early gamma-ray or X-ray afterglow should match the t^-1/2 to t^-2/3 decline and the <10^46 erg/s at 1 s bound; a sustained pair luminosity well above this would falsify the cooling

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

If this is right

  • For quark chemical potentials above 280 MeV, the pair luminosity of a newborn strange star can be read from a single temperature-dependent formula, independent of whether the matter is 2SC or CFL.
  • The surface of a strange star cools faster than its interior in every phase, so the pair wind fades within about a second and never exceeds 10^46 erg/s at 1 s.
  • Neutrino emission dominates the total energy budget of a newborn 2SC strange star; pair emission contributes only about 10^45 erg by 1 s.
  • In the CFL phase with a gap above about 60 MeV, neutrino emission is strongly suppressed and the pair luminosity briefly exceeds the neutrino luminosity, making pair emission a potentially visible surface probe of the pairing gap.
  • The total energy in pairs is always less than the neutrino energy, but the two become comparable in the large-gap CFL case.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the CFL surface in reality lacks the thin electron layer assumed here (a possibility the paper acknowledges with a 'see however' reference), the universal-luminosity claim would need to be restricted to 2SC-like surfaces, and the CFL pair-dominance branch would likely disappear.
  • The fast t^-1/2 to t^-2/3 decay of pair luminosity means pair-driven effects in strange-star progenitors would be confined to the first second or so, a testable time window for rapid transients associated with compact-object formation.
  • The universality formula is explicitly valid for T < 10 MeV and μ_q > 280 MeV; extending it to higher temperatures or lower chemical potentials, where the paper notes percent-level deviations, could reveal the phase dependence the current treatment suppresses.
  • Comparing the predicted late-time surface temperature after pair and neutrino losses with observed thermal emission from strange-star candidates could indirectly test the thermal-conductivity input for CFL matter, which varies by eight orders of magnitude across the gap range.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper models the early thermal evolution of newborn strange stars in the 2SC and CFL color-superconducting phases. The authors solve the heat equation with bulk neutrino losses and a surface boundary condition set by Schwinger electron-positron pair emission, using MIT-bag-model equation of state inputs, literature thermal conductivities, and literature neutrino emissivities. The central claims are: (i) the electrosphere pair luminosity is a universal function of surface temperature, independent of quark matter phase for μq > 280 MeV; (ii) pair luminosity decays rapidly, so it does not exceed 10^46 erg/s at 1 s; (iii) only the CFL phase with Δ > 60 MeV switches the ordering so that pair luminosity exceeds neutrino luminosity; (iv) total energy emitted in pairs is always smaller than neutrino energy but becomes comparable for large Δ. The paper provides an explicit fit, Eq. (12), and time-dependent temperature and luminosity curves in Figs. 8–11.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are correct, the paper would provide useful predictions for the early electromagnetic and neutrino output of newborn strange stars and a potential observable distinction between 2SC and CFL quark matter. The qualitative picture — the surface cools faster than the interior, a steep temperature gradient forms near the surface, and the pair luminosity decays steeply — is robust and consistent with the authors' earlier work [1]. The calculation is a genuine solution of the heat equation with imported microphysical inputs, not a circular argument. However, the absolute scale of the pair luminosity is controlled by an unspecified Lorentz factor in Eq. (11), and the claimed phase-independence of the electrosphere is imposed by an explicit approximation rather than derived. These issues affect the headline numerical claims, so the paper is not yet quantitatively established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (11)] The factor γ, described as 'the Lorentz factor of positrons', is never assigned a value, a range, or a derivation. It multiplies the entire pair luminosity, so it enters Eq. (12), all luminosity curves in Figs. 8–10, the integrated pair energies, and the abstract's statement that pair luminosity 'does not exceed 10^46 erg/s at 1 second'. If positrons are accelerated in the supercritical field, γ could be much larger than unity; for example γ ~ 100 would raise every pair luminosity by two orders of magnitude and would change the CFL Δ=100 pair/neutrino ordering reported in Sec. IV. The authors should determine γ from the electrostatic potential, cite a specific value from earlier work (e.g., Refs. [1,26,27]), or explicitly state that all quantitative results are per unit γ. This is a load-bearing point for the central numerical claims.
  2. [Sec. II, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The claimed phase-independence of the electrosphere is assumed, not derived. The same s-quark depletion formula n_S is applied to both 2SC and CFL with μ_s = μ_q, and the same Poisson equation with the same boundary condition is solved for both phases. For CFL, however, μ_e = 0 in the bulk, and whether a surface electron layer of the assumed form exists in the CFL phase is disputed — the paper itself cites 'see, however [25]' after Refs. [23,24] in Sec. I. Because the universality claim in the abstract and the entire CFL pair-luminosity branch depend on this surface treatment, the abstract's unqualified 'We show ... universal' overstates what is demonstrated. The authors should either justify the CFL boundary condition quantitatively or phrase the claim as conditional on this approximation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (11)] The integration upper limit z0 in Eq. (11) is never defined. Please specify the domain over which the pair-production rate is integrated and confirm that the result is insensitive to the choice of z0.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (10)] The Pauli blocking factor (1-f_e) is applied inside the pair-production integral. For positrons, the blocking factor should be that of the positron distribution, which is generally negligible; please clarify the approximation or justify using the electron distribution for both.
  3. [Fig. 2] The caption states that the fit (12) is valid for μq > 280 MeV, but the blue curve in Fig. 2 corresponds to μq = 250 MeV, which is outside that regime. The caption should state that the black fit is intended for the red curve only, or mark the region of validity on the figure.
  4. [Sec. IV and abstract] The abstract and Sec. V state that the total energy emitted in pairs 'becomes comparable' to the neutrino energy for large Δ. The numbers in Sec. IV for Δ=100 MeV are 3.0×10^45 erg in pairs versus 3.7×10^46 erg in neutrinos, a factor of ~12 difference. Please quantify 'comparable' or soften the wording.
  5. [Sec. II] The sentence 'we use the following relation ... μ_e = m_s^2/(2μ_q)' should explicitly state that this relation applies to the 2SC phase; for CFL, μ_e = 0 in the bulk. The current wording could be misread as applying to both.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: cooling is solved from imported microphysics; self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central cooling curves are genuine numerical solutions of the heat-transfer equation (19)-(23) with specific heats, conductivities and neutrino emissivities imported from independent literature ([59]-[65]); none of those inputs contains the target conclusion that pair luminosity decays fast or that CFL with Δ>60 MeV inverts the neutrino/pair balance. Eq. (12) is a fit to the authors' own intermediate computation L(T) from Eq. (11), not a fit to the final time-dependent claims; using it as a boundary condition in Eq. (20) is self-consistent because L is a function of surface temperature. The 'universal, phase-independent' electrosphere luminosity is explicitly qualified in Sec. II ('neglecting the difference in quark chemical potentials, μ_s=μ_q') and Sec. V ('if one neglects the difference...'), so it is an acknowledged approximation rather than a hidden circularity. The main self-citations ([1], [8], [27]) provide framework and previous results, but the present paper re-solves the heat equation and reproduces the gradient effect independently, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The most serious defect is not circularity: γ in Eq. (11) is never assigned a value, so all absolute luminosities and the abstract's 10^46 erg/s limit scale with this unspecified parameter; this is an under-specification/correctness risk, not a circular derivation. Overall score 2 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation and acknowledged assumptions; no step reduces by construction to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 10 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is a scenario calculation built on a chain of imported physics: an MIT-bag description of 2SC/CFL strange quark matter, a Schwinger pair-production rate with Pauli blocking, literature values for heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and neutrino emissivity, and the electrosphere model from the authors' previous papers. The genuinely new computations are the electrosphere luminosity and its fit (eq. 12), the heat-conduction evolution, and the phase comparison. The inputs the paper adjusts by hand (B, α_s, m_s, Δ) and the fit parameters (4.75, 6 MeV, 0.9 MeV), plus the unspecified positron γ, are listed above.

free parameters (7)
  • Bag constant B^{1/4} = ≈150 MeV
    Chosen so that μ_q ≃ 300 MeV at the surface for M=1.4 M_sun TOV solutions; sets the overall scale of the star.
  • QCD coupling α_s = 0.1
    Fixed by hand; enters via a4 = 1 − 2α_s/π in the grand potentials (eqs. 1-2).
  • Strange quark mass m_s = 100 MeV
    Fixed by hand; the paper checks m_s = 100-200 MeV only for the Schwinger luminosity.
  • Pairing gap Δ = 10-100 MeV (15, 50, 60, 100 in runs)
    Scanned, not derived; controls CFL conductivity (eq. 18), emissivity (eq. 23) and heat capacity.
  • Fit parameters of eq. (12) = normalization 10^48 erg/s (R/10 km)^2, exponent 4.75, scales 6 MeV and 0.9 MeV
    Fitted to the authors' own computed Schwinger luminosity; the 'universal function' is a numerical fit, not a derivation.
  • Positron Lorentz factor γ = not stated
    Multiplies the entire pair luminosity in eq. (11); no value or derivation given in the text.
  • Initial temperature T0 = 10 MeV
    Isothermal initial condition (eq. 21); the authors argue initial-state memory is lost after ~10^-4 s.
axioms (10)
  • domain assumption MIT bag model description of 2SC/CFL strange quark matter (grand potentials eqs. 1-2)
    The equation of state is model-dependent; the paper adopts one of several QCD-inspired models listed in Sec. II.
  • domain assumption SQM is absolutely stable: 3ϵ/n_q < 930 MeV at P=0
    The strange star hypothesis; restricts the parameter choice (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption Schwinger pair-production rate with Pauli blocking (eq. 10) applies in the electrosphere
    Adopted from [56-58]; the non-vacuum initial-state treatment relies on these references.
  • ad hoc to paper Surface s-quark depletion n_S is identical for 2SC and CFL with μ_s = μ_q
    Eq. (9) is applied to both phases 'neglecting the difference in quark chemical potentials'; this modeling step makes the electrosphere — and thus the pair luminosity — phase-independent by construction.
  • domain assumption CFL strange stars possess an electron electrosphere with μ_e = 0 in the bulk
    Adopted from [23,24] with the in-text caveat 'see, however [25]' in Sec. I; if wrong, CFL pair emission is qualitatively different.
  • domain assumption Isothermal initial state T(t=0,r) = T0
    Eq. (21); acknowledged as a simplification, argued to wash out after ~10^-4 s.
  • domain assumption Neutrino transparency; no neutrino trapping
    Carried over from [1] (Sec. I); sets bulk cooling to pure neutrino emission.
  • domain assumption CFL neutrino emission dominated by quark bremsstrahlung with exp(−2Δ/T) suppression; direct URCA absent
    Eq. (23), from [63-65].
  • domain assumption 2SC heat capacity from 5 unpaired quark species; CFL heat capacity from phonons (T^3)
    Eqs. (15)-(16), from [59]; gapped species assumed to not contribute at T ≲ 10 MeV.
  • domain assumption CFL thermal conductivity adopts the minimum value from [61]
    Eq. (18); the surface temperature gradient — and hence pair luminosity — depends on κ, and no range or uncertainty is discussed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13992 in / 25981 out tokens · 241666 ms · 2026-08-01T01:33:05.268047+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Following the previous wor k[1] here we consider early thermal evolution of hot strange stars made of color superconducting quarks in two different pairing states: two-flavor color superconductor (2SC) and color-flavor-locked (CFL) phases, taking into account cooling by neutrinos and electron-positron pair creation due to the Schwinger process. We show that Schwinger luminosity in the electrosphere is a universal function of temperature, independent of quark matter phase for quark chemical potential $\mu_q>280$ MeV. The surface of a strange star in all the cases cools faster than its interior. This leads to a fast decrease of pair luminosity with time, so that it does not exceed $10^{46}$ erg/s at 1 second after strange star formation. Neutrino luminosity dominates over pair luminosity in all the cases except for the CFL phase with a large gap parameter $\Delta>60$ MeV, where there is a strong suppression of neutrino emission. The total energy emitted in electron-positron pairs is always smaller than the energy emitted in neutrinos, but they become comparable for the large gap parameter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25766 by Cheng-Jun Xia, Gregory Vereshchagin, Mikalai Prakapenia.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schwinger luminosity (11) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Solution of Poisson equation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Quark chemical potential as a function of radius of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Thermal conductivity of 2SC quarks as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Thermal conductivity of CFL quarks as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Neutrino loss of CFL and 2SC strange quark matter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Time evolution of pair luminosity (blue) and neu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Surface temperature evolution from figures 9 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.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

70 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    We have also shown there that neutrino trapping does not change the cooling behavior of the surface

    we considered cooling of quark stars made of unpaired quarks taking into account both neutrino emission from the bulk and electron-positron emission from the surface and found that initially high luminosity in pairs cannot be sustained over long timescales of few seconds, due to insufficient thermal conductivity in the bulk. We have also shown there that ...

  2. [2]

    So, based on considerations of thermal con- ductivity, one may expect that the surface of CFL strange star cools down slower than the surface of 2SC strange star

    we have shown that low thermal conductivity causes the instant formation of a steep temperature gradient at the stellar surface and a rapid decrease of the surface temperature. So, based on considerations of thermal con- ductivity, one may expect that the surface of CFL strange star cools down slower than the surface of 2SC strange star. The temperature e...

  3. [3]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D30, 272 (1984)

    1984

  4. [4]

    Prakapenia and G

    M. Prakapenia and G. Vereshchagin, Phys. Rev. D113, 023007 (2026)

    2026

  5. [5]

    A. R. Bodmer, Phys. Rev. D4, 1601 (1971)

    1971

  6. [6]

    Glendenning,Compact Stars

    N. Glendenning,Compact Stars. Nuclear Physics, Parti- cle Physics and General Relativity.(Springer-Verlag New York, 1996)

    1996

  7. [7]

    Alcock, E

    C. Alcock, E. Farhi, and A. Olinto, ApJ310, 261 (1986)

    1986

  8. [8]

    Red: CFL strange star with ∆ = 60 MeV

    Blue: CFL strange star with ∆ = 15 MeV. Red: CFL strange star with ∆ = 60 MeV. Green: CFL strange star with ∆ = 100 MeV. Black: 2SC strange star with ∆ = 60 MeV. can expect that the temperature gradients inside the star disappear at the end of this stage. In contrast, the tem- perature gradient established at the surface layer is small for ∆ = 15 MeV, and...

    2025

  9. [9]

    Weber, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics54, 193 (2005), astro-ph/0407155

    F. Weber, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics54, 193 (2005), astro-ph/0407155

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  10. [10]

    M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Sch¨ afer, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1455 (2008)

    2008

  11. [11]

    Chen, C.-J

    H.-M. Chen, C.-J. Xia, and G.-X. Peng, The properties of strange quark matter and evolution of strange quark stars, 2026, arxiv:2601.11106

    arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Berezhiani, I

    Z. Berezhiani, I. Bombaci, A. Drago, F. Frontera, and A. Lavagno, ApJ586, 1250 (2003), astro-ph/0209257

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  13. [13]

    D. N. Aguilera, D. Blaschke, and H. Grigorian, A&A416, 991 (2004), astro-ph/0212237

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  14. [14]

    Pagliara, M

    G. Pagliara, M. Herzog, and F. K. R¨ opke, Phys. Rev. D87, 103007 (2013), 1304.6884

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  15. [15]

    Sedaghat, S

    J. Sedaghat, S. M. Zebarjad, G. H. Bordbar, B. Eslam Panah, and R. Moradi, Physics Letters B833, 137388 (2022), 2104.00544

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    K. S. Cheng and Z. G. Dai, Accretion-induced conver- sion of high-velocity neutron stars to strange stars in su- pernovae and implications for gamma-ray bursts, 2001, astro-ph/0105164

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  17. [17]

    Haensel, B

    P. Haensel, B. Paczynski, and P. Amsterdamski, ApJ375, 209 (1991)

    1991

  18. [18]

    Drago, A

    A. Drago, A. Lavagno, and I. Parenti, ApJ659, 1519 (2007), astro-ph/0512652

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  19. [19]

    V. V. Usov, The Astrophysical Journal481, L107 (1997)

    1997

  20. [20]

    V. V. Usov, ApJ550, L179 (2001)

    2001

  21. [21]

    A. V. Olinto, Physics Letters B192, 71 (1987)

    1987

  22. [22]

    Song, Phys

    X.-Y. Song, Phys. Rev. D111, 063040 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    Haensel and J

    P. Haensel and J. L. Zdunik, Nuovo Cim. B121, 1349 (2006), astro-ph/0701258

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  24. [24]

    J. Geng, B. Li, and Y. Huang, The Innovation2, 100152 (2021), 2103.04165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    V. V. Usov, T. Harko, and K. S. Cheng, ApJ620, 915 (2005), astro-ph/0410682

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  26. [26]

    V. V. Usov, Phys. Rev. D70, 067301 (2004)

    2004

  27. [27]

    Madsen, Phys

    J. Madsen, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4687 (2000)

    2000

  28. [28]

    Oertel and M

    M. Oertel and M. Urban, Phys. Rev. D77, 074015 (2008)

    2008

  29. [29]

    V. V. Usov, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 230 (1998)

    1998

  30. [30]

    Prakapenia and G

    M. Prakapenia and G. Vereshchagin, ApJ963, 149 (2024), 2311.16653

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Li, Y.-W

    S.-Z. Li, Y.-W. Yu, H. Gao, Z.-G. Dai, and X.-P. Zheng, ApJ922, 214 (2021), 2110.00795

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    D. Page, U. Geppert, and F. Weber, Nucl. Phys. A777, 497 (2006), astro-ph/0508056

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  33. [33]

    D. G. Nanopoulos, P. Laskos-Patkos, and C. C. Mous- takidis, Universe12, 18 (2026), 2512.21406

    arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    O. Y. Gnedin, D. G. Yakovlev, and A. Y. Potekhin, MN- RAS324, 725 (2001), astro-ph/0012306

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  35. [35]

    D. G. Yakovlev and C. J. Pethick, ARA&A42, 169 (2004), astro-ph/0402143

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  36. [36]

    Page and V

    D. Page and V. V. Usov, Physical Review Letters89, 131101 (2002), astro-ph/0204275

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  37. [37]

    E. S. Fraga, A. Kurkela, and A. Vuorinen, ApJ781, L25 (2014)

    2014

  38. [38]

    Kurkela, E

    A. Kurkela, E. S. Fraga, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and A. Vuorinen, ApJ789, 127 (2014)

    2014

  39. [39]

    J. F. Xu, G. X. Peng, F. Liu, D.-F. Hou, and L.-W. Chen, Phys. Rev. D92, 025025 (2015)

    2015

  40. [40]

    Xia and S.-G

    C.-J. Xia and S.-G. Zhou, Nucl. Phys. B916, 669 (2017)

    2017

  41. [41]

    C.-J. Xia, T. Maruyama, N. Yasutake, and T. Tatsumi, Phys. Rev. D99, 103017 (2019)

    2019

  42. [42]

    Holdom, J

    B. Holdom, J. Ren, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 222001 (2018)

    2018

  43. [43]

    E.-P. Zhou, X. Zhou, and A. Li, Phys. Rev. D97, 083015 (2018)

    2018

  44. [44]

    Miao, J.-L

    Z. Miao, J.-L. Jiang, A. Li, and L.-W. Chen, ApJ917, L22 (2021)

    2021

  45. [45]

    C. D. Roberts and A. G. Williams, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.33, 477 (1994)

    1994

  46. [46]

    Alkofer and L

    R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rep.353, 281 (2001)

    2001

  47. [47]

    G. X. Peng, A. Li, and U. Lombardo, Phys. Rev. C77, 065807 (2008)

    2008

  48. [48]

    C. J. Xia, G. X. Peng, S. W. Chen, Z. Y. Lu, and J. F. Xu, Phys. Rev. D89, 105027 (2014)

    2014

  49. [49]

    R. D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. A498, 423 (1989)

    1989

  50. [50]

    Schertler, C

    K. Schertler, C. Greiner, and M. H. Thoma, J. Phys. G 23, 2051 (1997)

    2051

  51. [51]

    Schertler, C

    K. Schertler, C. Greiner, and M. Thoma, Nucl. Phys. A 616, 659 (1997)

    1997

  52. [52]

    Buballa, Phys

    M. Buballa, Phys. Rep.407, 205 (2005)

    2005

  53. [53]

    Gholami, I

    H. Gholami, I. A. Rather, M. Hofmann, M. Buballa, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D111, 103034 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    E. S. Fraga, R. D. Pisarski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D63, 121702 (2001)

    2001

  55. [55]

    Alford, M

    M. Alford, M. Braby, M. Paris, and S. Reddy, ApJ629, 969 (2005)

    2005

  56. [56]

    Weissenborn, I

    S. Weissenborn, I. Sagert, G. Pagliara, M. Hempel, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, ApJ740, L14 (2011)

    2011

  57. [57]

    Kettner, F

    C. Kettner, F. Weber, M. K. Weigel, and N. K. Glenden- ning, Phys. Rev. D51, 1440 (1995)

    1995

  58. [58]

    Xia and S.-G

    C.-J. Xia and S.-G. Zhou, Nuclear Physics B916, 669 (2017)

    2017

  59. [59]

    Prakapenia and G

    M. Prakapenia and G. Vereshchagin, Phys. Rev. D108, 013002 (2023), 2306.12956

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Brodin, H

    G. Brodin, H. Al-Naseri, J. Zamanian, G. Torgrims- son, and B. Eliasson, Phys. Rev. E107, 035204 (2023), 2209.07872

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Gatoff, A

    G. Gatoff, A. K. Kerman, and T. Matsui, Phys. Rev. D36, 114 (1987)

    1987

  62. [62]

    E. J. Ferrer, V. de la Incera, and P. Sanson, Phys. Rev. D103, 123013 (2021)

    2021

  63. [63]

    Shternin and D

    P. Shternin and D. Ofengeim, The European Physical Journal A58(2022)

    2022

  64. [64]

    Braby, J

    M. Braby, J. Chao, and T. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. C81, 045205 (2010)

    2010

  65. [65]

    M. V. Beznogov, D. Page, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, ApJ888, 97 (2020), 1908.04888

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    Iwamoto, Annals of Physics141, 1 (1982)

    N. Iwamoto, Annals of Physics141, 1 (1982)

    1982

  67. [67]

    Jaikumar and M

    P. Jaikumar and M. Prakash, Physics Letters B516, 345 (2001)

    2001

  68. [68]

    Jaikumar, M

    P. Jaikumar, M. Prakash, and T. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. D 66, 063003 (2002). 12

    2002

  69. [69]

    M. G. Alford, H. Nishimura, and A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. C90, 055205 (2014)

    2014

  70. [70]

    M. G. Alford and A. Sedrakian, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics37, 075202 (2010)

    2010