Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The paper argues that the nuclear symmetry energy and repulsive dark-sector interactions together determine whether neutron dark decay can occur inside neutron stars without violating observed mass constraints.

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 ↗

A parameter study of beta-stable neutron star matter with neutron dark decay shows the symmetry energy and dark-sector interactions jointly set radii and tidal deformability, keeping the decay scenario compatible with observed masses.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Systematic, honest sensitivity scan of neutron dark decay in beta-stable stars, but the assumed μ_n=μ_χ equilibrium makes all M-R/Λ predictions conditional on an unproven condition. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.21754 v1 pith:UU4VTLXY submitted 2025-08-29 nucl-th astro-ph.SRhep-phnucl-ex

Neutron Dark Decay in Neutron Stars: The Role of the Symmetry Energy

M. Divaris , Ch.C. Moustakidis This is my paper
classification nucl-th astro-ph.SRhep-phnucl-ex
keywords neutron dark decayneutron star equation of statenuclear symmetry energydark matter self-interactionbeta-stable mattertidal deformabilitymass-gap compact objectsneutron lifetime anomaly
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether the proposed dark decay of neutrons—an extra decay channel n→χ+φ put forward to explain the beam-versus-bottle neutron lifetime discrepancy—can happen inside neutron stars without contradicting observed masses. The authors find that the answer hinges on the nuclear symmetry energy, the quantity governing how the energy of asymmetric nuclear matter rises with neutron excess. For beta-stable matter with neutrons, protons, electrons, and equilibrated dark fermions, the symmetry-energy parameter η=(K0L^2)^(1/3) sets how stiff the equation of state is. When dark particles repel each other strongly, or when baryon-dark matter repulsion is added, the equation of state can stay stiff enough to support two-solar-mass neutron stars, and in some cases even objects in the mass-gap region. The paper concludes that the dark decay channel cannot be excluded on the basis of current astrophysical mass constraints, although the environmental dependence of the decay inside dense matter remains an open problem.

Core claim

The core discovery is that, unlike several earlier studies that considered only pure neutron matter, the neutron dark decay scenario is not automatically lethal for neutron stars. Treating the star as beta-stable npe matter plus an equilibrated gas of dark fermions from n→χ+φ, and parameterizing the nuclear equation of state by η=(K0L^2)^(1/3), the authors show that the symmetry energy (through L and K0) and the repulsive interactions within the dark sector and between dark and baryonic matter act together to set the particle fractions and total pressure. For strong dark self-interactions, the dark particles appear mainly at high density and leave stellar structure nearly unchanged; for weak

What carries the argument

The key machinery is an equation of state built from a total energy density E_tot(n_n, n_p, n_χ, n_e) that couples a parabolic nuclear-matter ansatz—whose stiffness is set by η=(K0L^2)^(1/3), where K0 is the incompressibility and L the symmetry-energy slope—to a gas of repulsively interacting dark fermions described by Yukawa-type self- and cross-interactions. Chemical equilibrium conditions μ_n=μ_χ and μ_n=μ_p+μ_e, together with charge neutrality, fix the particle fractions; the pressure follows from the Gibbs-Duhem relation. Solving the TOV equations for these equations of state yields mass-radius curves and tidal deformabilities. The η parameter is the knob connecting finite-nucleus input

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the dark fermion χ produced by neutron decay reaches chemical equilibrium with neutrons (μ_n = μ_χ) and forms a single equilibrated fluid filling the star; if the decay rate depends on density, pressure, or magnetic field—which the paper explicitly flags as an open problem—the equilibrium composition and all resulting mass-radius curves no longer describe the star.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a high-precision joint measurement of the radius and dimensionless tidal deformability Λ of a 1.4-solar-mass neutron star (for example from a loud binary neutron star merger). If the measured point falls outside the envelope of all curves the paper generates across its full range of η and dark-sector coupling strengths, the symmetry-energy-tuned dark-decay scenario is falsified. Equally decisive would be evidence that the neutron dark decay rate is suppressed or enhanced in dense matter, since that would break the chemical-equilibrium assumption on which the entire cal

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

If this is right

  • If the dark decay channel is real, neutron star equations of state should be evaluated with beta-stable matter rather than pure neutron matter, because the symmetry energy changes the dark-particle fraction and hence the stiffness.
  • Strongly repulsive dark-matter self-interactions (small zχ) keep the mass-radius curves nearly identical to the no-dark-matter case, so the scenario remains compatible with observations such as GW170817 and the high-mass pulsar measurements.
  • Adding repulsive baryon-dark matter interactions, without self-interaction, can stiffen the equation of state enough to produce objects in the mass-gap region, giving a concrete signature for future searches.
  • The tidal deformability Λ at 1.4 solar masses spans up to two orders of magnitude as η and the dark-sector couplings are varied, making it the most sensitive observable for distinguishing or constraining the dark-decay scenario.
  • The dark decay channel cannot currently be excluded by mass constraints alone; only more precise radius or tidal measurements can tighten the allowed parameter space.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the neutron dark decay rate is density- or pressure-dependent—which the paper explicitly leaves open—the chemical equilibrium assumption would break down, and the predicted mass-radius and tidal deformability curves would shift; a measurable cooling anomaly or a dark-fraction signal in neutron stars could probe this directly.
  • The paper treats the dark and baryonic components as a single fluid; a two-fluid treatment could yield different radii and tidal signatures, so merger waveforms might be able to distinguish the two descriptions.
  • Direct measurements of the symmetry-energy slope L (for instance from neutron-skin experiments) would narrow the η band and sharpen the predicted relationship between dark-sector coupling and observable neutron-star properties.
  • The mass-gap objects produced in the pure baryon-dark matter interaction case would have unusually large radii and high tidal deformabilities, offering a way to distinguish them from black holes in gravitational-wave events.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the astrophysical implications of the neutron dark-decay hypothesis n → χ + φ inside neutron stars, focusing on the role of the nuclear symmetry energy. The hadronic sector is described by a low-order Taylor expansion of the energy density around saturation (Eqs. 5–9), parameterized by η = (K0 L^2)^{1/3}. The dark sector is treated as a Fermi gas with repulsive self-interactions and, in some variants, repulsive baryon–dark matter interactions. The composition is determined by the chemical equilibrium conditions μ_n = μ_χ and μ_n = μ_p + μ_e (Eq. 17), with the dark boson φ escaping freely. The resulting EoS is used to compute mass–radius curves and tidal deformabilities. The main claims are that the symmetry-energy parameter strongly affects the EoS and observables, that appropriate dark-sector repulsion can keep the model compatible with 2 M⊙ pulsars, and that baryon–DM interactions alone can produce mass-gap compact objects. The paper concludes that the dark-decay channel cannot be excluded by current astrophysical constraints.

Significance. If the model assumptions are accepted, this is a useful systematic study: it extends earlier pure-neutron-matter treatments to β-stable matter with protons and electrons, separately considers dark self-interactions and baryon–dark interactions, and uses standard TOV and tidal-deformability machinery. The finding that baryon–DM repulsion can produce mass-gap objects is interesting and connects to recent two-fluid models. The paper is also transparent that the environmental dependence of the decay is an open problem. The main limitations are that the composition and all derived observables rest on an unvalidated equilibrium saturation assumption, that the EoS is a low-order expansion extrapolated to very high densities, and that the parameter η entangles the symmetry energy with the symmetric-matter incompressibility.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.C, Eq. (17)] The equality μ_n = μ_χ fixes nχ and, through Eq. (20), the entire EoS and all M–R/Λ results. The paper states that φ escapes and does not contribute to the EoS; in this open-system limit the reverse process χ + φ → n is suppressed, so Eq. (17) is not a detailed-balance chemical equilibrium. It can be interpreted as the Pauli-blocking endpoint of the one-way decay, but that requires the decay to have run to saturation inside the star and to be unaffected by the medium. The abstract and Concluding remark (e) explicitly leave the environmental dependence open. Since Fig. 4 and Figs. 1–3, 5 are conditional on this saturation assumption, the conclusions should be re-framed as a particular scenario, or the sensitivity to a partially populated χ Fermi sea should be quantified.
  2. [§III.A, Eqs. (5)–(9)] The hadronic EoS is a Taylor expansion around n0 truncated at second order in (n−n0) and first order in S(n). It is used up to total densities n_t ≈ 1.5 fm⁻³ (Fig. 4), where (n−n0)/n0 ≈ 8. At these densities the omitted Ksym term in Eq. (6) is not necessarily small: with |Ksym| ≈ 100 MeV, its contribution to the energy density is of order several hundred MeV fm⁻³. The quantitative claims about the η dependence of Mmax, R1.4, and Λ1.4 are therefore not robust to the truncation. I recommend either restricting the analysis to densities where the expansion is controlled or benchmarking against a more complete EoS.
  3. [Table I and §III.A] The parameter η = (K0 L^2)^{1/3} is varied by increasing K0 and L simultaneously (Table I). Thus the effects attributed to the nuclear symmetry energy are entangled with the stiffness of symmetric nuclear matter through K0. The abstract's central claim that the symmetry energy critically shapes the EoS is not isolated by this design. To support the title and abstract, the authors should vary L at fixed K0, or otherwise decorrelate the symmetry-energy slope from the incompressibility, at least for representative cases.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] There are numerous typographical errors: 'defomability' in the Fig. 1 caption, 'amnd' in Ref. [19], 'e.t.c.' in Concluding remark (e), a missing initials in Ref. [27], and 'Tanjia Hinderer' in Ref. [57]. Please proofread carefully.
  2. [Figs. 1–3] The legends mix 'with DM' and 'without DM' curves for ten values of η, making individual curves difficult to distinguish. The observational shaded regions are described only in the captions. Consider separating the panels or using distinct line styles, and include a table of Mmax, R1.4, and Λ1.4 values.
  3. [§III.C] The text says both the dark boson and the neutrino escape. While the neutrino condition is standard, the escaping dark boson means the star is not in global thermodynamic equilibrium; the local equilibrium used here should be clearly stated as a steady-state assumption rather than an equilibrium of the closed system.
  4. [§II] The mass bounds in Eqs. (3)–(4) are stated allowing for nonzero mφ, but the calculations set mφ = 0. A brief sentence explaining that mφ = 0 is consistent with the quoted bounds would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: parameter study with derived M-R/Λ outputs; caveats are model assumptions, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper is a controlled sensitivity study. Its EoS is assembled from a standard β-equilibrium hadronic model (Eqs. 5–9), a dark-fermion gas with Yukawa self-interaction and optional baryon-DM repulsion (Eqs. 10–15), and the chemical-equilibrium conditions μ_n=μ_χ and μ_n=μ_p+μ_e (Eq. 17). No observational mass/radius/tidal datum is used to set model parameters; interaction strengths and η values are scanned, and observed constraints (GW170817, pulsar masses) are only overlaid for comparison. Thus the M-R/Λ curves are genuine derived outputs of the stated model, not fits renamed as predictions. The self-citations ([46] for the K0,L,η parameterization; [64,65] for two-fluid mass-gap studies) are not load-bearing: the η parameterization is also rooted in Refs. [44,45], and the mass-gap configurations are computed here with the present one-fluid EoS and TOV integration, with [64,65] used only as corroboration. The strongest possible concern is the μ_n=μ_χ assumption for an open system in which φ escapes; but the paper itself flags the environmental dependence as an open problem (abstract; concluding remark (e)), so this is an acknowledged physical limitation rather than a circular reduction. Consequently the derivation chain is self-contained and no step reduces to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The model rests on the assumed dark decay channel, the equilibrium of its products with baryons, and a low-order phenomenological nuclear EoS. The free parameters are the symmetry energy stiffness eta, the dark-sector interaction strengths z_chi and z_chi_i, and the fixed dark fermion mass. No new entity with independent falsifiable evidence is introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • eta = (K0 L^2)^(1/3) via K0 and L = K0 = 220-256 MeV, L = 40-112 MeV, eta = 70.6-147.5 MeV
    Chosen table of stiffness values; the central claim that symmetry energy matters is a sensitivity scan over this parameter.
  • z_chi (dark matter self-interaction strength) = 10, 25, 50, 100 MeV
    Sets the strength of the repulsive chi-chi Yukawa interaction in Eqs. (10)-(12); ranges follow prior constraints.
  • z_chi_n, z_chi_p (baryon-dark matter interaction strengths) = 50, 70, 235, 250 MeV
    Sets the strength of repulsive nucleon-chi interactions in Eqs. (14)-(15); chosen from ranges discussed in Ref. [9].
  • m_chi (dark fermion mass) = 938 MeV (fixed)
    Chosen inside the allowed window of Eq. (3) to keep nuclei stable and chi stable; not fitted in this paper.
  • J, n0, E0 (symmetry energy at saturation, saturation density, energy at saturation) = J = 30 MeV, n0 = 0.16 fm^-3, E0 = -16 MeV (fixed)
    Standard nuclear matter inputs adopted in Eq. (9); they are input constants, not fitted here.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The neutron dark decay channel n -> chi + phi occurs and is the explanation for the beam-bottle lifetime discrepancy.
    Adopted from Fornal and Grinstein [7]; the channel is not experimentally established, and the paper's final sentence says its behavior in stars is unknown.
  • domain assumption chi is a stable spin-1/2 fermion with baryon number 1, and phi is a massless boson that escapes the star.
    Imposed in Section II; no direct detection or production evidence is offered.
  • domain assumption Dark decay products reach chemical equilibrium with neutrons, mu_n = mu_chi, together with beta equilibrium mu_n = mu_p + mu_e and charge neutrality n_p = n_e.
    Eqs. (17)-(18); this is the main load-bearing assumption and is unvalidated.
  • domain assumption The energy density expansion Eq. (9), truncated at quadratic order in density with the Ksym term dropped, is valid up to total densities near 1.5 fm^-3.
    Used throughout; the omitted term is called small but no quantitative bound is given at high density.
  • standard math TOV equations and the tidal Love number formalism describe the star.
    Section IV; standard general relativity input.
  • domain assumption phi and neutrinos escape and do not contribute to energy density or pressure.
    Stated in Section III C; needed to close the equation of state.
invented entities (2)
  • chi, dark fermion with baryon number 1 and mass 938 MeV no independent evidence
    purpose: Final state of neutron dark decay; accumulates in the neutron star and changes the equation of state.
    Borrowed from the Fornal-Grinstein proposal; this paper adds no new detection handle. The beam-bottle anomaly is indirect and does not establish the particle.
  • phi, light dark boson no independent evidence
    purpose: Decay partner that escapes the star; also conflated with the Yukawa mediator mass m_phi in Eq. (10).
    No direct evidence; the paper assumes masslessness while also using nonzero z_chi values that imply a massive mediator.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutron Dark Decay in Neutron Stars: The Role of the Symmetry Energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UU4VTLXY

@misc{pith2026250821754,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutron Dark Decay in Neutron Stars: The Role of the Symmetry Energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UU4VTLXY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21754}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We conduct a systematic investigation of the influence of the nuclear symmetry energy on the proposed neutron decay into dark matter particles within the cores of neutron stars. Unlike the majority of previous studies that considered only pure neutron matter, the present analysis is extended to encompass $\beta$-stable nuclear matter. Furthermore, in relation to previous studies, the interactions between dark matter and baryons are incorporated and systematically studied regarding their effect on the structure of neutron stars. Our findings indicate that the nuclear symmetry energy plays a critical role in shaping the total equation of state (EoS) for dense neutron star matter containing dark sector components. The strength of interactions among dark matter particles, as well as between dark matter and baryons, is shown to be pivotal in determining both the composition and the macroscopic properties of neutron stars. The concurrent tuning of interaction strengths alongside the symmetry energy parameters may facilitate a more accurate reproduction of recent observational data relevant to neutron star properties. In any case, the extent to which the proposed dark decay of the neutron is affected by the extreme conditions prevailing in the interior of neutron stars remains an open problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21754 by Ch.C. Moustakidis, M. Divaris.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The M-R diagrams (left) and the tidal defomability Λ as a function of the mass M (right) with interaction parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The same with Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The same with Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The fractions of neutrons, protons and dark matter particles as a function of the total number density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The values of the maximum mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Minimal Proton-Mass Dark Matter

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A minimal dark matter model with one complex scalar carrying B and L numbers, stabilized by proton stability, with mass near the proton mass and relic density from UV freeze-in.

  2. Bulk viscosity from neutron decays to dark baryons in neutron star matter

    astro-ph.HE 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0

    Neutron dark decays modify the equation of state and either mildly suppress or strongly enhance bulk viscosity in neutron star merger conditions, depending on the in-medium decay rate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Pichlmaier, V

    A. Pichlmaier, V. Varlamov, K. Schreckenbach, and P. Geltenbort, Phys. Lett. B 693, 221 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Serebrov et al., Phys

    A. Serebrov et al., Phys. Lett. B 605, 72 (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Steyerl, J.M

    A. Steyerl, J.M. Pendlebury, C. Kaufman, S.S. Malik, A.M. Desai, Phys. Rev. C 85, 065503 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Arzumanov, L

    S. Arzumanov, L. Bondarenko, S. Chernyavsky, P. Gel- tenbort, V. Morozov, V.V. Nesvizhevsky, Y. Panin, A.A. Strepetov, Phys. Lett. B 745, 79 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Byrne et al., Phys

    J. Byrne et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 289 (1990)

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    Yue, M.S

    A.T. Yue, M.S. Dewey, D.M. Gilliam, G.L. Greene, A.B. Laptev, J.S. Nico, W.M. Snow, F.E. Wietfeldt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 222501 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Fornal and B

    B. Fornal and B. Grinstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 191801 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Fornal, Universe 9, 449 (2023)

    B. Fornal, Universe 9, 449 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Bastero-Gil, T

    M. Bastero-Gil, T. Huertas-Roldan, and D. Santos, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083003 (2024)

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Fornal and B

    B. Fornal and B. Grinstein, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 35, 2030019 (2020). 9 60 80 100 120 140 160 (MeV) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5Mmax (MSun) (a) PSR J0952-0607 PSR J0740+6620 PSR J0348+0432 PSR J1614-2230 n,p,e only n,p,e + DM with z = 10 MeV n,p,e + DM with z = 25 MeV n,p,e + DM with z = 50 MeV n,p,e + DM with z = 100 MeV 60 80 100 120 140 160 (MeV) 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9...

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Baym, D.H

    G. Baym, D.H. Beck, P. Geltenbort, and J. Shelton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 061801 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Motta, P.A.M

    T.F. Motta, P.A.M. Guichon, and A.W. Thomas, Int. Journ. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1844020 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Motta, P.A.M

    T.F. Motta, P.A.M. Guichon, and A.W. Thomas, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 45, 05LT01 (2018)

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Husain, T.F

    W. Husain, T.F. Motta, and A.W. Thomas, JCAP 10, 028 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Grinstein, C

    B. Grinstein, C. Kouvaris, N.G. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 091601 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    McKeen Ann E

    D. McKeen Ann E. Nelson, S. Reddy, and Dake Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 061802 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Husain and and A.W

    W. Husain and and A.W. Thomas, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 50, 015202 (2023)

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Husain, arXiv:2505.17355 [hep-ph]

    W. Husain, arXiv:2505.17355 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  19. [19]

    Shirke, S

    S. Shirke, S. Ghosh, D. Chatterjee, L. Saunsi, amnd J.S. Bielich, JCAP 12, 008 (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Das and G.F

    H.C. Das and G.F. Burgio, Universe 11, 159 (2025)

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Tan, Phys

    W. Tan, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134921 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Cline and J

    J.M. Cline and J. M. Cornell, J. High Energy Phys. 07, 081 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Darini, Eur

    L. Darini, Eur. Phys. J. C 83:364 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Strumia, JHEP 02, 067 (2022)

    A. Strumia, JHEP 02, 067 (2022)

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Ejiri and J.D

    H. Ejiri and J.D. Vergados, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 46, 025104 (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Ivanov, R.Hollwieser, N.I

    A.N. Ivanov, R.Hollwieser, N.I. Troitskaya, M. Wellen- zohn, and Ya.A. Berdnikov, Nucl. Phys. B 938, 114 (2019)

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Implications of the recent neutron decay measurements on the properties of compact objects -- a dark star with nucleonic shell ?

    M. Veselsk´ y, V. Petousis, Ch.C. Moustakidis and Vikiaris, eprint arXiv:2507.17340

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Zhou, Universe 9, 484 (2023)

    D. Zhou, Universe 9, 484 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Gardner and M

    S. Gardner and M. Zakeri, Universe 10, 67 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Bramante and N

    J. Bramante and N. Raj, Phys. Rep. 1052, 1-48 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Grippa, G

    F. Grippa, G. Lambiase, and T.K. Poddar, Universe 11, 74 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Z. Tang, M. Blatnik, L.J. Broussard, J.H. Choi, S.M. Clayton, C. Cude-Woods, S. Currie, D.E. Fellers, E.M. Fries, P. Geltenbort, et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 022505 (2018)

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    X. Sun, E. Adamek, B. Allgeier, M. Blatnik, T.J. Bowles, L.J. Broussard, M.A.P. Brown, R. Carr, S. Clayton, C. Cude-Woods, et al., Phys. Rev. C 97, 052501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    Baldo and G.F

    M. Baldo and G.F. Burgio, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 91, 203 (2016)

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    A. W. Steiner, M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, and P. J. Ellis, Phys. Rep. 411, 325 (2005)

    work page 2005

  36. [36]

    Sammarruca, Int

    F. Sammarruca, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 22, 1330031 (2013)

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    J. M. Lattimer, Particles 6, 30 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Lattimer, Nucl

    J.M. Lattimer, Nucl. Phys. A 928, 276 (2014)

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    B.A. Li, `A. Ramos, G. Verde and I. Vida˜ na, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 9 (2014)

    work page 2014

  40. [40]

    C. J. Horowitz, E. F. Brown, Y. Kim, W. G. Lynch, R. Michaels, A. Ono, J. Piekarewicz, M. B. Tsang, H. H. Wolter, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 41, 093001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    Bao-An Li, Bao-Jun Cai, Wen-Jie Xie, and Nai-Bo Zhang, Universe 7(6), 182 (2021)

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Bao-Jun Cai and Bao-An Li, Ann. of Phys. 444, 169062 (2022)

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Burgio, H.-J

    G.F. Burgio, H.-J. Schulze, I. Vida˜ na, and J.-B. Wei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 120, 103879 (2021)

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    Sotani, K

    H. Sotani, K. Iida, K. Oyanatsu, and A. Ohnishi, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 051, E01 (2014). 10

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    Sotani, N

    H. Sotani, N. Nishimura, and T. Naito, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 041, D01 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Divaris, A

    M. Divaris, A. Kanakis-Pegios, and Ch. C. Moustakidis, Phys. Rev. C109 109, 055805 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Nelson, S

    Ann E. Nelson, S. Reddy, and D. Zhou, JCAP 07, 012 (2019)

    work page 2019

  48. [48]

    A. Loeb, N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 171302 (2011)

    work page 2011

  49. [49]

    Kaplinghat, S

    M. Kaplinghat, S. Tulin, H.B. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 041302 (2016)

    work page 2016

  50. [50]

    Sagunski, S

    L. Sagunski, S. Gad-Nasr, B. Colquhoun, A. Robertson, S. Tulin, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2021, 024 (2021)

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    Randall, M

    S.W. Randall, M. Markevitch, D. Clowe, A.H. Gonzalez, M. Bradaˇ c, Astrophys. J.679, 1173 (2008)

    work page 2008

  52. [52]

    Oh, W.J.G

    S.H. Oh, W.J.G. de Blok, E. Brinks, F. Walter, R.C. Kennicutt, Astron. J. 141, 193 (2011)

    work page 2011

  53. [53]

    S. L. Shapiro, S. A. Teukolsky, Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Ob- jects (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1983)

    work page 1983

  54. [54]

    Haensel, A

    P. Haensel, A. Y. Potekhin, D. Yakovlev,Neutron Stars 1 : Equation of State and Structure(Springer-Verlag, New York, 2007)

    work page 2007

  55. [55]

    Schaffner-Bielich, Compact Star Physics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2020)

    J. Schaffner-Bielich, Compact Star Physics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2020)

    work page 2020

  56. [56]

    Flanagan and Tanja Hinderer, Phys

    ´Eanna ´E. Flanagan and Tanja Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D 77, 021502(R) (2008)

    work page 2008

  57. [57]

    Tanjia Hinderer, ApJ 677, 1216 (2008)

    work page 2008

  58. [58]

    Doroshenko, V

    V. Doroshenko, V. Suleimanov, G. Phlhofer, and Andrea Santangelo, Nat. Astron. 6, 1444 (2022)

    work page 2022

  59. [59]

    B. P. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. X 9, 011001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    Arzoumanian, A

    Z. Arzoumanian, A. Brazier, S. Burke-Spolaor et al., As- trophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 235, 37 (2018)

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    Antoniadis, P

    J. Antoniadis, P. Freire, N. Wex et al., Science 340, 448 (2013)

    work page 2013

  62. [62]

    Cromartie, E

    H. Cromartie, E. Fonseca, S. Ransom et al., Nat. Astron. 4, 72 (2020)

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    R. G. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L17 (2022)

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    Vikiaris, V

    M. Vikiaris, V. Petousis, M. Veselsk´ y, and Ch.C. Mous- takidis, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123006 (2024)

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    Vikiaris, V

    M. Vikiaris, V. Petousis, M. Veselsk´ y, and Ch.C. Moustakidis, IJMPD, 2550064 (2025), DOI: 10.1142/S0218271825500646

    doi:10.1142/s0218271825500646 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.