Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 83 references

Probing strange quark matter objects with future space-based gravitational wave detectors DECIGO and BBO

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read If strange quark matter exists, DECIGO and BBO should hear the continuous gravitational waves of strange planets orbiting strange stars out to about 1000 kpc.

desk verdict Straightforward feasibility study mapping the detectable parameter space for SS-SP binaries with DECIGO/BBO; printed evolution equations have a missing factor but the qualitative conclusion holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01408 v1 pith:UL55UHBK submitted 2026-08-02 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR

Abdusattar Kurban , Xia Zhou , Na Wang , Yong-Feng Huang , Wenming Yan , Jianping Yuan , Ali Esamdin , Rai Yuen
show 4 more authors
Jin-Hong Chen Xiao-Fei Dong Zhigang Wen Yu-Bin Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords strangequarkmatterstarsplanetscontinuousgravitationalwaveseccentricbinariesDECIGOBBOpulsars
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

Under the Bodmer–Witten hypothesis, strange quark matter could form objects ranging from planets to stars, and a strange star orbited by a strange planet would emit gravitational waves long before any inspiral. This paper calculates the continuous GW signal from such binaries at millihertz to decihertz frequencies using the Peters–Mathews harmonic formalism and compares it with the planned space-based detectors DECIGO and BBO. For a four-year observation, both detectors reach signal-to-noise ratios above 5 across broad regions of the physically motivated parameter space, including systems up to 1000 kpc away. If such systems exist, these detectors would offer a new, independent test of the strange quark matter hypothesis.

What carries the argument

The Peters–Mathews (1963) decomposition of GW emission from an eccentric binary into harmonics $n f_{\rm orb}$, with the enhancement factor $F(e)$, together with the coupled evolution equations for orbital frequency and eccentricity under radiation reaction. The signal-to-noise ratio is computed by summing up to $n=1200$ harmonics using the LEGWORK code (Wagg et al. 2022) with DECIGO and BBO power spectral densities from Yagi & Seto (2011, 2017) and confusion noise following Sun et al. (2024). The tidal-disruption-radius argument sets the allowed orbital separations: a strange planet, with mean density $\bar\rho\approx 4\times10^{14}\,{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}$, can survive down to $r_{\rm td}\approx

What would settle it

Observe the continuous GW band with DECIGO or BBO for several years and find no signals from any known nearby pulsar with a low-mass companion at the predicted frequencies and S/N threshold; this would falsify the claim that SS–SP systems populate the surveyed parameter space. Conversely, a detected continuous GW source showing an unexpectedly high orbital-frequency cutoff would rule out an ordinary neutron star companion and support the strange-planet interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that strange star–strange planet (SS–SP) binaries in a long-lived close orbit, before the companion enters the inspiral phase, produce continuous GWs whose frequencies fall in the DECIGO/BBO band and that these signals are detectable with S/N $\geq 5$ for wide ranges of planet mass, orbital frequency, eccentricity, and distance. Eccentricity is shown to enhance the signal substantially: for $e=0.95$ a planet of $10^{-7}\,M_\odot$ at 1 kpc reaches S/N about 3.4 for DECIGO and about 17.6 for BBO, while for $e=0$ the same system is undetectable. The detectable planet mass ranges from $7.6\times10^{-10}\,M_\odot$ for a close, circular, nearby system to about $4.7\times10^{-5

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on strange star–strange planet systems actually existing with the assumed masses, separations, eccentricities, and distances; if such binaries never form or are extremely rare in the Milky Way and nearby galaxies, the predicted detections will not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If SS–SP systems exist in the adopted parameter grid, DECIGO and BBO will detect continuous GWs from them within the Milky Way and out to about 1000 kpc, covering most Local Group galaxies such as M31.
  • Eccentric orbits raise the S/N by orders of magnitude and shift the detectable window to lower orbital frequencies, so the first detections may be highly eccentric systems formed by capture or SQM clump ejection.
  • Non-detection would not disprove the SQM hypothesis, because strange stars could still form through hadron–quark phase transitions in neutron star mergers or core-collapse supernovae and produce high-frequency GW signatures.
  • A detection would test the SQM hypothesis and help distinguish formation channels: strange planets ejected from newborn strange stars versus primordial strangelets captured by compact objects.
  • BBO's sensitivity advantage over DECIGO in roughly 0.07–0.9 Hz means it can probe planet masses down to about half the DECIGO lower limit in that band.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same harmonic formalism could be used in reverse: the observed high-frequency cutoff of a continuous GW source would encode the companion's tidal disruption radius, and thus its mean density, providing a direct way to tell a strange-matter planet from an ordinary rocky or gaseous planet.
  • The predicted eccentricity boost suggests that searches with DECIGO/BBO should prioritize known pulsars with planetary-mass companions; even a non-detection would place upper limits on the abundance of strange planets and constrain the SQM hypothesis.
  • A distance reach of roughly 1000 kpc means a positive detection might come from Andromeda rather than the Milky Way, which would broaden the source volume but complicate electromagnetic follow-up.
  • Combining a GW detection with a prompt search for X-ray or radio bursts from tidal stripping could test whether the companion is genuinely quark matter rather than a low-mass white dwarf.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper studies continuous gravitational-wave emission from binaries consisting of a strange star (1.4 or 2.0 solar masses) and a strange planet (1e-10 to 1e-3 solar masses) in the pre-inspiral, close-orbit phase, under the Bodmer-Witten SQM hypothesis. Using Peters-Mathews orbital evolution and the LEGWORK package with DECIGO/BBO noise curves, the authors compute harmonic-resolved amplitude spectral densities and S/N for circular and eccentric orbits over a grid of masses, separations (periastron distances 4.75e7 to 5.6e10 cm), eccentricities (0, 0.5, 0.95), and distances (0.1-1000 kpc). They conclude that for T_obs = 4 yr, both DECIGO and BBO can detect such systems over a broad parameter space, and that eccentricity enhances detectability while extending detectable systems to lower orbital frequencies. They also discuss formation scenarios and implications for the SQM hypothesis.

Significance. If correct, the calculation provides a concrete, falsifiable observational channel for testing the SQM hypothesis in the mHz-dHz band, complementary to ground-based inspiral searches and electromagnetic observations. The modeling uses standard, published Peters-Mathews equations and the public LEGWORK code; no parameters are fitted to data, and the predicted S/N values and detection contours are direct outputs of the assumed model. The paper is also explicit that non-detection would not falsify SQM because other observational channels remain. The main limitations are the speculative existence of SS-SP systems and several parameter choices that bracket the claimed 'broad parameter space.' These do not undermine the logical structure but need to be made precise and, in places, corrected.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (8)–(9)] Equations (8) and (9) lose a factor 2^{8/3}. With Ω = 2π f_orb, the standard Peters-Mathews equation dΩ/dt = (96/5)(G M_c)^{5/3}/c^5 Ω^{11/3} F(e) becomes df_orb/dt = (96/5)(2π)^{8/3}(G M_c)^{5/3}/c^5 f_orb^{11/3} F(e); the printed form (96/5π)(π f_orb)^{11/3} is smaller by a factor 2^{8/3} ≈ 6.35. The same error affects Eq. (9). Because Eq. (7) uses the initial/final frequencies obtained from these evolution equations, the numerical tables and contours depend on this factor unless the public LEGWORK routine uses the correct form. Please correct the equations and explicitly confirm which form the code implements; if the code implements the printed equations, all S/N values, Table 2, and Figures 3–5 must be recomputed.
  2. [§4.1, tevo definition] The code description sets t_evo = min(T_obs, t_merge − t_before), with t_before = 1 s for circular orbits and t_before = 0.1 yr for eccentric orbits. The eccentric value is asserted without derivation. This parameter matters precisely in the close, massive, high-eccentricity corner where t_merge can become comparable to or shorter than T_obs; Figures 4–5 extend to r_p = 4.75×10^7 cm, where this regime occurs. Please justify the choice (e.g., where the point-particle/continuous-wave approximation breaks down before merger) and demonstrate robustness of the S/N ≥ 5 boundaries to the choice, for instance over t_before ≈ 0.01–1 yr.
  3. [§3, r_p range] The adopted orbital-separation upper bound r_p = 5.6×10^10 cm is the tidal disruption radius of a normal-matter planet with ρ̄ = 30 g cm^{-3}, not of a strange planet (r_td ≈ 2.37×10^6 cm for SQM-density matter). The text gives no physical reason why a strange planet could not reside at larger periastron distances. Because Figures 4–5 use this value as the low-frequency edge of the parameter grid, the stated detectable parameter space is partly determined by this normal-matter bound. Please either justify the bound from SS-SP formation physics or extend the grid and state how the detection boundaries change.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4.1] The parameter list in the text says D_L = {0.1, 10, 1000} kpc, while Figure 3's caption and Table 2 use D_L = {0.1, 1, 10} kpc. These should be aligned.
  2. [§4.1] The phrase 'S/N and ADS calculations' should be 'ASD calculations'; the acronym is defined earlier as amplitude spectral density.
  3. [§2, Eq. (11)] Equation (11) defines ASD_n = ⟨S/N_n⟩ sqrt(S_n(f_gw,n)). As written, this is not the usual amplitude spectral density and the relation to h_c,n is not transparent. Please state the normalization convention explicitly so that Figure 3 can be reproduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: S/N predictions follow from standard Peters-Mathews equations and an explicitly assumed SS-SP parameter grid; self-citations are contextual.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is conditional: assuming the SQM hypothesis, particular SS-SP parameter ranges, and the Peters-Mathews radiation formulas, the GW strain from such systems exceeds the DECIGO/BBO noise curves. The derivation chain is explicit: Eq. (1) gives f_orb from (m1, m2, a); Eqs. (2)-(4) give the harmonic power using standard Peters-Mathews results; Eq. (6) maps that to characteristic strain using Wagg et al. (2022); Eq. (7) integrates the strain against the detector noise PSD from Yagi & Seto (2011, 2017). No parameter is fitted to the target quantity: the S/N values are direct outputs of prescribed masses, distances, eccentricities, and detector sensitivity curves. The self-citations (Kuerban et al. 2019, 2020; Kurban et al. 2026) set parameter-space context (tidal disruption radii, prior sensitivity statements) and the S/N=5 threshold, but none assert the detectability result as a premise. The Bodmer-Witten hypothesis and "pulsars are strange stars" are explicit physical assumptions, not conclusions derived from the GW calculation. The factor-of-2π discrepancy in Eq. (8) is a potential numerical correctness issue that would shift quantitative S/N values, but it does not make the argument circular. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input; therefore no circularity is identified.

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

The central claim rests on the assumed existence of strange quark matter objects and on a chosen grid of system parameters, plus standard gravitational wave physics. No new entities are introduced; the SS-SP system is a hypothesized astrophysical system from prior literature.

free parameters (6)
  • Strange planet mean density (rho_SP) = 4 x 10^14 g/cm^3
    Used to compute the strange planet tidal disruption radius r_td = 2.37 x 10^6 cm (Section 3). This density is an assumption about SQM planets, not measured.
  • Pre-merger time t_before for eccentric orbits = 0.1 years
    Assigned in LEGWORK snr.py usage (Section 4.1) without physical derivation; directly truncates the integration time for eccentric systems.
  • Observation time T_obs = 4 years
    Chosen as mission lifetime for DECIGO/BBO (Section 4).
  • Detectability threshold S/N = 5
    Set following previous works (Kupfer et al. 2018; Kurban et al. 2026).
  • System parameter grid = m1={1.4,2.0} Msun, m2=[1e-10,1e-3] Msun, rp=[4.75e7,5.6e10] cm, e={0,0.5,0.95}, DL={0.1,10,1000} kpc
    The hand-selected grid defines the 'broad parameter space' claim; different bounds would change the conclusion (Section 3, Table 1).
  • Lower bound factor on separation = 20 r_td
    Sets minimum periastron distance as 20 times the strange planet tidal radius, following Geng et al. 2015 (Section 3).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Bodmer-Witten hypothesis: strange quark matter is the ground state of hadronic matter.
    The entire study assumes SQM objects can exist; introduced in Section 1 and used throughout.
  • domain assumption Pulsars are strange stars.
    Explicitly stated at the start of Section 3: 'we assume that pulsars are strange stars.'
  • standard math Peters-Mathews gravitational wave energy loss and orbital evolution equations.
    Equations (1) to (10) are used without derivation; standard results from Peters and Mathews 1963.
  • standard math Tidal disruption radius formula r_td ~ (6M/(pi rho))^(1/3) (Hills 1975).
    Equation (12), used to set the minimum orbital separation.
  • domain assumption SQM mass-radius relation of Kettner et al. 1995.
    Used in Section 3 to argue strange planets can exist in the explored mass range.
  • domain assumption Detector sensitivity curves for DECIGO and BBO from Yagi and Seto 2011 with confusion noise from Sun et al. 2024.
    These are proposed mission models, not built detectors; the detectability conclusion depends on these sensitivity curves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing strange quark matter objects with future space-based gravitational wave detectors DECIGO and BBO." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UL55UHBK

@misc{pith2026260801408,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing strange quark matter objects with future space-based gravitational wave detectors DECIGO and BBO},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UL55UHBK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01408}
}
read the original abstract

The Strange Quark Matter (SQM) hypothesis posits that objects composed of SQM could exist across a wide mass range, from strange planets (SPs) to strange stars (SSs). It has been proposed that gravitational waves (GWs) emitted by inspiraling SS-SP systems may be detectable by ground-based GW observatories such as advanced LIGO and the Einstein Telescope. Nevertheless, such a system may undergo an extended period of orbital evolution in a close configuration before entering the inspiraling phase. During this time, it can generate continuous GW signals at frequencies ranging from milli-hertz (mHz) to deci-hertz (dHz). The detailed characteristics of these GWs have not yet been thoroughly explored. In this study, we delve into the continuous GW features of SS-SP systems, with a focus on exploring the physically viable parameter space. We compared the GW signals emitted by these systems to the sensitivity curves of next-generation space-based GW detectors like the Deci-hertz Interferometer Gravitational wave Observatory (DECIGO) and the Big Bang Observer (BBO). Our analyses demonstrate that both the DECIGO and BBO detectors are capable of detecting continuous GWs from SS-SP systems across a broad parameter space. These GWs carry important information for testing the SQM hypothesis, as well as for advancing our understanding of supernovae and compact star merger processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01408 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Parameter space for the orbital elements of SS￾SP systems considered in this work. (e.g., Geng et al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2024b). Through the combined analysis of this distance together with the aforementioned tidal disruption distance estimates, we are able to determine the range of orbital separa￾tion between the strange star and the strange planet. For a system in a circular orbit, their separation can be r ∈ [4.7… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. depicts the merger time as a function of or￾bital frequency, orbital eccentricity, and planet mass. The orbital frequency is derived by integrating the or￾bital eccentricity, planet mass, and periastron distance. For each line, the upper and lower limits of the or￾bital frequency correspond to the periastron distances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the signal calculated for Tobs = 4 years with p Sn(fgw) at the amplitude spectral density ASD versus the GW frequency fgw plane, where Sn(fgw) represents the noise power spectral densities (Yagi & Seto 2011, 2017; Sun et al. 2024) for DECIGO (solid line) and BBO (dashed line). The subplots represent the calculation results for systems with different combinations across the strange planet mass m2 = {10−… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The parameter space in which the SS-SP systems can produce detectable signals with S/N ≥ 5, assuming Tobs = 4 years of observations using DECIGO. Each subplot shows the systems, with a fixed primary mass m1, orbital eccentricity e, and distance DL, in the strange plane…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Analogous to the scenario presented in figure 4, but for BBO. with a S/N ratio greater than or equal to 5 is extensive. This parameter space shrinks as the distance to the sys￾tem and orbital eccentricity increase. For orbital and distance parameters {e, DL} = {0, 0.1 …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 061102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 —. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 —. 2020a, ApJL, 892, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  2. [2]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2020b, ApJL, 896, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f

  3. [3]

    1986, ApJ, 310, 261, doi: 10.1086/164679

    Alcock, C., Farhi, E., & Olinto, A. 1986, ApJ, 310, 261, doi: 10.1086/164679

    doi:10.1086/164679 1986

  4. [4]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.00786 2017

  5. [5]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  6. [6]

    I., & Kokkotas, K

    Andersson, N., Jones, D. I., & Kokkotas, K. D. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1224, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05837.x GW from SS-SP Systems11

    arXiv 2002

  7. [7]

    2023, Nature Communications, 14, 8451, doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-44051-y

    Annala, E., Gorda, T., Hirvonen, J., et al. 2023, Nature Communications, 14, 8451, doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-44051-y

    doi:10.1038/s41467-023-44051-y 2023

  8. [8]

    2020, Nature Physics, 16, 907, doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-0914-9

    Vuorinen, A. 2020, Nature Physics, 16, 907, doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-0914-9

    doi:10.1038/s41567-020-0914-9 2020

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Antoniadis, J., Freire, P. C. C., Wex, N., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 448, doi: 10.1126/science.1233232

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    F., Blaschke, D

    Bauswein, A., Bastian, N.-U. F., Blaschke, D. B., et al. 2019, PhRvL, 122, 061102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.061102

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    2009, PhRvL, 103, 011101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.011101

    Bauswein, A., Janka, H.-T., Oechslin, R., et al. 2009, PhRvL, 103, 011101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.011101

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    2010, PhRvD, 81, 024012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.024012

    Bauswein, A., Oechslin, R., & Janka, H.-T. 2010, PhRvD, 81, 024012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.024012

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, PhRvL, 125, 141103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.141103

    Bauswein, A., Blacker, S., Vijayan, V., et al. 2020, PhRvL, 125, 141103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.141103

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Bodmer, A. R. 1971, Phys. Rev. D, 4, 1601, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.4.1601

    1971 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, PhRvL, 126, 162702, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.162702

    Bombaci, I., Drago, A., Logoteta, D., Pagliara, G., & Vidaña, I. 2021, PhRvL, 126, 162702, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.162702

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    2022, PhRvD, 106, 103032, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103032

    Bauswein, A. 2022, PhRvD, 106, 103032, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103032

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    2026, PhRvD, 113, 044002, doi: 10.1103/f8dq-t7ky

    Char, P., & Biswas, B. 2026, PhRvD, 113, 044002, doi: 10.1103/f8dq-t7ky

    2026 doi

  10. [18]

    S., & Dai, Z

    Cheng, K. S., & Dai, Z. G. 1996, PhRvL, 77, 1210, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1210

    1996 doi

  11. [19]

    N., Kalafatis, D., & Vinh Mau, R

    Cottingham, W. N., Kalafatis, D., & Vinh Mau, R. 1994, PhRvL, 73, 1328, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.1328

    1994 doi

  12. [20]

    2006, PhRvD, 73, 042001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.042001

    Cutler, C., & Harms, J. 2006, PhRvD, 73, 042001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.042001

    2006 doi

  13. [21]

    1995, ApJ, 440, 815, doi: 10.1086/175316

    Dai, Z., Peng, Q., & Lu, T. 1995, ApJ, 440, 815, doi: 10.1086/175316

    1995 doi

  14. [22]

    B., Pennucci, T., Ransom, S

    Demorest, P. B., Pennucci, T., Ransom, S. M., Roberts, M. S. E., & Hessels, J. W. T. 2010, Nature, 467, 1081, doi: 10.1038/nature09466

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    2021, PhRvC, 103, 025808, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.025808 Di Clemente, F., Drago, A., & Pagliara, G

    Salinas, M. 2021, PhRvC, 103, 025808, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.025808 Di Clemente, F., Drago, A., & Pagliara, G. 2024, ApJ, 967, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad445b

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1444, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01800-1

    Santangelo, A. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1444, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01800-1

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2018, ApJL, 852, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa40a

    Drago, A., & Pagliara, G. 2018, ApJL, 852, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa40a

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Marshall, H

    Drake, J. J., Marshall, H. L., Dreizler, S., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 572, 996, doi: 10.1086/340368

    2002 doi

  19. [27]

    Farhi, E., & Jaffe, R. L. 1984, PhRvD, 30, 2379, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.30.2379

    1984 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Horowitz, C

    Fattoyev, F. J., Horowitz, C. J., Piekarewicz, J., & Reed, B. 2020, PhRvC, 102, 065805, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.065805

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    2011, ApJS, 194, 39, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/39

    Fischer, T., Sagert, I., Pagliara, G., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 39, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/39

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    2021, The Innovation, 2, 100152, doi: 10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100152

    Geng, J., Li, B., & Huang, Y. 2021, The Innovation, 2, 100152, doi: 10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100152

    2021

  23. [31]

    J., Huang, Y

    Geng, J. J., Huang, Y. F., & Lu, T. 2015, ApJ, 804, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/21

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    L., & Schaefer, R

    Haensel, P., Zdunik, J. L., & Schaefer, R. 1986, A&A, 160, 121

    1986

  25. [33]

    Hamers, A. S. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 275, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac3d98

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    2026, PhRvD, 113, 044057, doi: 10.1103/71t3-3t28

    Hammond, P., Clevinger, A., Albino, M., et al. 2026, PhRvD, 113, 044057, doi: 10.1103/71t3-3t28

    2026 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Fritschel, P., Shaddock, D

    Harry, G. M., Fritschel, P., Shaddock, D. A., Folkner, W., & Phinney, E. S. 2006, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23, 4887, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/23/15/008

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    Hills, J. G. 1975, Nature, 254, 295, doi: 10.1038/254295a0

    1975 doi

  29. [37]

    Horvath, J. E. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 813, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/009

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    2020, PhRvD, 102, 063021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063021

    Huang, S.-J., Hu, Y.-M., Korol, V., et al. 2020, PhRvD, 102, 063021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063021

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    F., & Yu, Y

    Huang, Y. F., & Yu, Y. B. 2017, ApJ, 848, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b63

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    2006, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23, S125, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/23/8/S17

    Kawamura, S., Nakamura, T., Ando, M., et al. 2006, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23, S125, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/23/8/S17

    2006 doi

  33. [41]

    K., & Glendenning, N

    Kettner, C., Weber, F., Weigel, M. K., & Glendenning, N. K. 1995, PhRvD, 51, 1440, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.51.1440

    1995 doi

  34. [42]

    2019, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Kuerban, A., Geng, J.-J., & Huang, Y.-F. 2019, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 2127, Xiamen-CUSTIPEN Workshop on the Equation of State of Dense Neutron-Rich Matter in the Era of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, 020027, doi: 10.1063/1.5117817

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab698b

    Gong, H. 2020, ApJ, 890, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab698b

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 302, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1545

    Kupfer, T., Korol, V., Shah, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 302, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1545

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2022a, Physics Letters B, 832, 137204, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137204 12Kurban et al

    Kurban, A., Huang, Y.-F., Geng, J.-J., & Zong, H.-S. 2022a, Physics Letters B, 832, 137204, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137204 12Kurban et al

    2022

  38. [46]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 4265, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1260 —

    Kurban, A., Zhou, X., Wang, N., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4265, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1260 —. 2024, A&A, 686, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347828

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    2022b, ApJ, 928, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac558f

    Kurban, A., Huang, Y.-F., Geng, J.-J., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 928, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac558f

    doi

  40. [48]

    2026, A&A, 708, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557134

    Kurban, A., Zhou, X., Wang, N., et al. 2026, A&A, 708, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557134

    2026 doi

  41. [49]

    2025, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 12, 1625459, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2025.1625459

    Li, B.-P., Gao, Z.-F., Ma, W.-Q., & Cheng, Q. 2025, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 12, 1625459, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2025.1625459

    2025

  42. [50]

    P., Gao, Z

    Li, B. P., Gao, Z. F., Ma, W. Q., Zhang, W. F., & Cheng, Q. 2026, ApJ, 999, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3bcf

    2026 doi

  43. [51]

    2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    Luo, J., Chen, L.-S., Duan, H.-Z., et al. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    2005 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1020, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02291-y

    Marino, A., Dehman, C., Kovlakas, K., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1020, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02291-y

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    2025, PhRvL, 135, 091402, doi: 10.1103/zklh-27mr

    Miao, Z., Zhu, Z., & Lai, D. 2025, PhRvL, 135, 091402, doi: 10.1103/zklh-27mr

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2021, ApJL, 918, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    2026, ApJL, 1000, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae474c

    Morras, G., Pratten, G., & Schmidt, P. 2026, ApJL, 1000, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae474c

    2026 doi

  49. [57]

    2013, A&A, 558, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322231

    Nakazato, K., Sumiyoshi, K., & Yamada, S. 2013, A&A, 558, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322231

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    2024, European Physical Journal C, 84, 210, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12572-5

    Li, B. 2024, European Physical Journal C, 84, 210, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12572-5

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    Olinto, A. V. 1987, Physics Letters B, 192, 71, doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(87)91144-0

    1987 doi

  52. [60]

    Paulucci, L., & Horvath, J. E. 2014, Physics Letters B, 733, 164, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.04.036

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    C., & Mathews, J

    Peters, P. C., & Mathews, J. 1963, Physical Review, 131, 435, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.131.435

    1963 doi

  54. [62]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.16686, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.16686

    Qi, H., Yuan, W.-L., Luo, Y., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.16686, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.16686

    2026 doi

  55. [63]

    W., Kandel, D., Filippenko, A

    Romani, R. W., Kandel, D., Filippenko, A. V., Brink, T. G., & Zheng, W. 2022, ApJL, 934, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8007

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1807.09495, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1807.09495 —

    Ruan, W.-H., Guo, Z.-K., Cai, R.-G., & Zhang, Y.-Z. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1807.09495, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1807.09495 —. 2020, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 35, 2050075, doi: 10.1142/S0217751X2050075X

    2018 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    2009, PhRvL, 102, 081101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.081101

    Sagert, I., Fischer, T., Hempel, M., et al. 2009, PhRvL, 102, 081101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.081101

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    2022, Physics Letters B, 833, 137388, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137388

    Panah, B., & Moradi, R. 2022, Physics Letters B, 833, 137388, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137388

    2022

  59. [67]

    2026a, A&A, 706, A203, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556315

    Shahrbaf, M., Rafiei Karkevandi, D., Ayriyan, A., & Typel, S. 2026a, A&A, 706, A203, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556315

    doi

  60. [68]

    2026b, JCAP, 2026, 017, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/017

    Shahrbaf, M., Thakur, P., & Rafiei Karkevandi, D. 2026b, JCAP, 2026, 017, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/017

    2026 doi

  61. [69]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.02652, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.02652

    Shirke, S., Maiti, R., & Chatterjee, D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.02652, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.02652

    2025 doi

  62. [70]

    2024, A&A, 682, A177, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347221

    Sun, M., Li, J., Cao, S., & Liu, X. 2024, A&A, 682, A177, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347221

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    Wagg, T., Breivik, K., & de Mink, S. E. 2022, ApJS, 260, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5c52

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    R., Hanauske, M., & Rezzolla, L

    Weih, L. R., Hanauske, M., & Rezzolla, L. 2020, PhRvL, 124, 171103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.171103

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    1984, PhRvD, 30, 272, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.30.272

    Witten, E. 1984, PhRvD, 30, 272, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.30.272

    1984 doi

  66. [74]

    Xu, R. X. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 570, L65, doi: 10.1086/340993

    2002 doi

  67. [75]

    Xu, R. X. 2006, Astroparticle Physics, 25, 212, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2006.01.004

    2006 doi

  68. [76]

    1998, Chinese Physics Letters, 15, 934, doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/15/12/026

    Xu, R.-x., & Qiao, G.-j. 1998, Chinese Physics Letters, 15, 934, doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/15/12/026

    1998 doi

  69. [77]

    2011, PhRvD, 83, 044011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.044011 —

    Yagi, K., & Seto, N. 2011, PhRvD, 83, 044011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.044011 —. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 109901, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.109901

    2011 doi

  70. [78]

    2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 055016, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/adce4e

    Yuan, Y.-J., & Zhou, X. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 055016, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/adce4e

    2025 doi

  71. [79]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.08707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.08707

    Zenati, Y., Albertus Torres, C., Silk, J., & Ángeles Pérez-García, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.08707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.08707

    2025 doi arXiv

  72. [80]

    P., Chu, M.-c., Lin, L.-M., & Couch, S

    Zha, S., O’Connor, E. P., Chu, M.-c., Lin, L.-M., & Couch, S. M. 2020, PhRvL, 125, 051102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.051102

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    2024a, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1409463, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1409463

    Zhang, X.-L., Huang, Y.-F., & Zou, Z.-C. 2024a, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1409463, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1409463

    2024

  74. [82]

    2024b, MNRAS, 531, 3905, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1400

    Zhang, X.-L., Zou, Z.-C., Huang, Y.-F., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 531, 3905, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1400

    doi

  75. [83]

    2021, ApJ, 910, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe538

    Zhou, X., Li, A., & Li, B.-A. 2021, ApJ, 910, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe538

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.