Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Exploring nuclear force with pulsar glitch observation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Vela glitch forces symmetry energy slope below 40 MeV

desk verdict A self-consistent RMF-to-glitch pipeline that credibly shows L0 matters for pinning, but the headline constraint (L0<40, Vela ~2.2 solar masses) sits exactly in the density range the calculation itself cannot yet do. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09219 v2 pith:ZOACYVRZ submitted 2024-12-12 nucl-th astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

Zhong-Hao Tu , Ang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR PACS 97.60.Jd26.60.-c21.65.Ef
keywords neutronstarspulsarglitchesnuclearsymmetryenergyvortexpinningrelativisticmeanfieldsuperfluidneutronsVeladensematterequationofstate
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

The paper tries to turn a single observed pulsar glitch into a quantitative probe of the nuclear force. It builds a fully self-consistent chain: a relativistic mean-field equation of state, the composition of the inner crust, the superfluid pairing gap, the energy needed to pin a neutron vortex to a nucleus, and finally the snowplow dynamics of the glitch. Fed with the 2000 Vela glitch, this chain implies that the slope of the nuclear symmetry energy at saturation, $L_0$, must lie below 40 MeV and that the neutron pairing gap must be strongly suppressed, with $eta \sim 3.0$. A sympathetic reader should care because $L_0$ is one of the least constrained parameters of dense matter, and glitches are one of the only observational windows into the superfluid crust of neutron stars.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pinning energy $E_p(\rho_B)$, computed semi-classically as the difference in energy cost between a vortex pinned interstitially and one pinned to a nucleus, integrated over a Wigner-Seitz cell with the local density approximation; the nuclear-medium effective mass and pairing gap are used consistently. From $E_p$ the paper builds the pinning force per unit length $f_{\rm pin}$, then the total pinning force on a rigid vortex, and finally the critical angular-velocity lag $\Delta\Omega_{\rm cr}$ in the snowplow model, whose maximum sets the avalanche region and the angular momentum transferred in the glitch.

What would settle it

Recompute the same snowplow chain with non-spherical pasta phases, such as rods or slabs, included in the pinning-energy calculation; if the resulting profile still matches Vela 2000 with $L_0 > 40$ MeV, or yields a Vela mass near $1.4\,M_\odot$, the paper's constraint breaks. A direct independent measurement of Vela's mass below $2\,M_\odot$ would likewise falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the pinning strength of superfluid vortices in the neutron-star inner crust is controlled mainly by the symmetry energy slope, with smaller $L_0$ producing larger pinning energies and forces that peak at higher densities. Combining these self-consistently computed pinning-force profiles with the snowplow model of vortex avalanches, the paper shows that the observed jump and short-time relaxation of the 2000 Vela glitch can only be reproduced for $L_0 < 40$ MeV together with strong polarization $\beta \simeq 3.0$; weaker polarization or steeper symmetry energy fails the spin-down step constraint. The same fit forces the Vela pulsar to be massive, about $2.255$–$2.290\,M_\odot$ for the DD-ME2 isoscalar interaction and $2.069$–$2.084\,M_\odot$ for PKDD, with the NL3 family ruled out.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the inner crust can be represented by spherical Wigner-Seitz droplets all the way to the crust-core boundary, even though the calculation itself fails to converge to stable droplets at the highest densities, exactly where the pinning force peaks, and non-spherical pasta structures are neglected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 2000 Vela glitch, treated in the snowplow model, singles out equations of state with $L_0 < 40$ MeV, excluding steep-symmetry-energy families such as NL3.
  • The required $\beta \sim 3.0$ implies that strong medium polarization suppresses the $^1S_0$ neutron pairing gap, so pinning in the deep crust is much weaker than in bare BCS estimates.
  • Vela must be a massive neutron star, near $2.3\,M_\odot$ for DD-ME2 and $2.08\,M_\odot$ for PKDD, rather than a typical $1.4\,M_\odot$ pulsar.
  • Only a small fraction ($Y_{gl} < 1\%$) of core superfluid vorticity is coupled to the crust during the glitch.
  • Short vortex lengths are disfavored, implying strong vortex tension in the inner crust.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If pasta phases dominate the densities where the droplet solution fails, the pinning-force peak could move or split, and the inferred $L_0$ and Vela mass could shift; the current constraint is therefore conditional on sphericity.
  • The same self-consistent machinery could be applied to other large glitches, such as the 2016 Vela event, or to glitch statistics, turning a single-event constraint into a population-level test of $L_0$.
  • Including entrainment between superfluid neutrons and the crustal lattice, which is omitted here, would change the effective superfluid inertia and could relax or sharpen the mass and $L_0$ bounds.
  • The discrepancy with the much larger pinning force inferred from glitch-rate statistics suggests tension between nuclear-theory pinning and avalanche models that future microscopic calculations of the pasta layer could resolve.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper connects a relativistic mean field (RMF) description of neutron star matter to the 2000 Vela glitch through the snowplow model of vortex unpinning. The authors construct unified equations of state from DD-ME2, PKDD, and NL3 with adjusted symmetry energy slopes L0 = 30, 40, 60, 80 MeV, compute Wigner-Seitz cell structures of the inner crust, calculate BCS pairing gaps with a phenomenological force and polarization factors β = 2.0 and 3.0, and then use a semiclassical local-density method to obtain the vortex pinning energy and pinning force. These are mapped onto the star using TOV density profiles and fed into the snowplow model. By fitting the fraction Ygl of coupled core superfluid to the observed glitch amplitude and comparing the predicted post-glitch spin-down change with the observed value, the paper concludes that L0 is below 40 MeV, polarization is strong (β ≈ 3.0), and Vela is massive: about 2.255–2.290 solar masses for DD-ME2 and 2.069–2.084 solar masses for PKDD.

Significance. The paper is valuable as a self-consistent pipeline: the unified EoS, crust composition, pairing properties, pinning forces, and stellar structure are all computed within one RMF framework, and the pinning input is not fitted to glitch data. The use of the observed glitch amplitude only through Ygl and the independent comparison of the predicted ΔΩdot/Ωdot is a legitimate and potentially falsifiable strategy. If the technical gaps in the high-density crust treatment can be closed or bounded, a nuclear-force constraint such as L0 < 40 MeV from a single well-observed glitch would be a meaningful result. At present, however, the advertised conclusion relies on a density region in which the authors' own calculation is explicitly incomplete, so the significance is conditional rather than established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 and Fig. 7; Sec. 3.2 and Fig. 9] The central constraint L0 < 40 MeV and the associated Vela masses are controlled by the maximum of fpin near the crust-core transition, but the manuscript does not compute fpin there. The authors state in Sec. 3.1 that 'our calculations fail to yield a stable droplet structure in these densities, which strongly suggests that the non-spherical structures should be included,' and in Sec. 2.3 that pasta structures are neglected because 'the reliable method to calculate pinning energy that pinning to non-spherical nuclei is still lack.' Since Fig. 9 places the strong-pinning peak of ΔΩcr just at this density interval, the quantities rmax = R*_L, ro = R*_M, and the integral in Eq. (31) are either extrapolated or truncated in the very region that dominates the angular momentum transfer. Please provide a quantitative sensitivity analysis of the excluded interval—for example, alternative pinning estimates for pasta configurations, or tests with different cutoffs/extrapolations—and, until then, soften the L0 and mass conclusions to be explicitly conditional on spherical droplet structures.
  2. [Sec. 2.5 and Eq. (27)] The interstitial pinning configuration is computed for a single droplet in a cylindrical container, and the authors note that the calculation 'loses the energy contributions from the neighboring droplets' when the inter-droplet spacing becomes smaller than the vortex core. This is exactly the high-density regime where the pinning energy reaches tens to hundreds of MeV for small L0 (upper panels of Fig. 7). A single-site IP treatment can bias Ep and hence fpin upward in the region that drives the snowplow constraint. The manuscript should at least state the sign and approximate magnitude of this bias, and ideally estimate the multi-site correction, because fpin enters linearly in Fpin and therefore directly in the derived L0 and mass constraints.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 and Fig. 11] The vortex rigidity length l is an input parameter, not a derived quantity. The statement that 'Vela 2000 does not support a short vortex length' is an output of the model for l = 5000 Rws, not a validation of that choice. Since Fig. 11 shows that fpin and the resulting ΔΩdot/Ωdot constraint change substantially with l, the Sec. 3.2 conclusions inherit this model dependence. Please add an explicit statement of how the L0 and Vela-mass constraints vary over the range l = 1000–5000 Rws, or otherwise justify why the chosen value is physically preferred for Vela.
  4. [Sec. 2.6, Eqs. (32)–(33)] The comparison procedure fits Ygl from the observed glitch amplitude, leaving only one independent prediction per model family. The accepted models require Ygl below 1 percent, i.e., essentially complete decoupling of the core superfluid from the normal crust. This is a strong physical assumption about the coupling between the 3P2 core superfluid and the crust; the manuscript does not discuss whether such a small Ygl is plausible. Please add a discussion of the physical interpretation of Ygl and of the sensitivity of the conclusions to the assumed core-crust coupling.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to the '2001 glitch of the Vela pulsar,' while the rest of the paper consistently uses the '2000 Vela glitch'; please make the epoch consistent.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (17)] The energy density expression contains stray factors of 1/2 in the meson gradient terms, e.g., '1/2 (∇ω)^2 1/2' and '1/2 (∇A0)^2 1/2'; these appear to be typographical artifacts and should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. 2.4] Polarization is sampled only at β = 2.0 and 3.0, yet one of the conclusions is that β ≈ 3.0 is preferred. A continuous scan of β, or at least an intermediate value such as β = 2.5, would make the conclusion about the polarization strength more robust.
  4. [Sec. 2.6] The text says 'the constant κ is the quantum of circulation of a neutron fluid'; for a paired neutron superfluid the quantum of circulation is κ = h/(2m_n), and specifying this explicitly would avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Sec. 3.2] The phrase 'the lower limit of observation can be satisfied' is imprecise: the comparison is with the observed ΔΩdot/Ωdot range including 1σ uncertainty, and the wording should distinguish lower limits on the observable from lower limits on model parameters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the L0 constraint and Vela mass inference are obtained by forward-modeling scanned nuclear parameters through self-consistently computed pinning forces and comparing with Vela's two glitch observables.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The nuclear symmetry-energy slope L0 is an input parameter, not an output fitted to the glitch: the authors refit the isovector channel of DD-ME2, PKDD, and NL3 to fixed L0 values of 30, 40, 60, and 80 MeV, construct unified equations of state, and compute the pinning energy and force from the resulting inner-crust compositions. The Vela 2000 glitch then selects among these pre-scan values, which is a legitimate forward-model test rather than a fit of L0 to the glitch. Similarly, the fraction Ygl is determined by fitting Eq. (32) to the observed glitch amplitude, but the independent observed quantity DeltaOmegaDot/OmegaDot is then predicted from Eq. (33) and compared with the measured value; this two-observable comparison is not forced by construction. The main caveats, explicitly acknowledged by the authors, are that spherical Wigner-Seitz droplet calculations fail to converge near the crust-core transition and that pasta structures are neglected, which could shift the inferred constraints. These are model-completeness or correctness risks, not circularity: they concern whether the input microphysics is complete, not whether the outputs are already contained in the inputs. The self-citation to Shang & Li (2021) is contextual and comparative rather than load-bearing, since the pinning force here is computed self-consistently rather than adopted from that prior fit.

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

The central claim is carried by several model parameters adopted from the literature or chosen by hand, most notably the symmetry energy slope L0 (scanned over 30 to 80 MeV), the polarization strength beta (2.0 or 3.0), the vortex length l (5000 Rws), and the pairing force constants. The snowplow parameter Ygl is fitted to the glitch amplitude, and the predictive power comes from the independent comparison with the healing ratio. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Symmetry energy slope L0 = 30, 40, 60, 80 MeV (scan)
    The isovector coupling parameters g_rho and a_rho are refitted to fix L0 to these values (Table 2); the paper scans rather than fits them, but the central conclusion depends on this choice.
  • Polarization strength beta = 2.0, 3.0
    Taken from the Lombardo & Schulze (2000) range; the result requires beta near 3.0, so the conclusion depends on this literature-derived parameter.
  • Vortex length l = 5000 Rws
    Chosen following Seveso et al. (2016); Sec. 3.3 shows results are sensitive to l, with smaller l failing to match Vela 2000.
  • Ygl (coupled core-superfluid fraction) = Determined by fitting Eq. (32) to the observed glitch amplitude; up to 1% for acceptable cases
    A free parameter of the snowplow model; the paper uses the observed DeltaOmega to fix it, then tests the model prediction for DeltaOmegaDot/OmegaDot.
  • Pairing force parameters GN, alpha = GN = 738 MeV fm^3, alpha = 0.636 fm
    Adopted from Tian et al. (2009) and Rong et al. (2020); the pairing gap, and hence the pinning energy, is sensitive to these values, but they are not varied in this paper.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Relativistic mean-field approximation with meson-exchange interaction (Eq. 1) describes nucleonic matter in the crust and core.
    The RMF model is assumed to be quantitatively reliable over the relevant density range; the paper does not compare with non-relativistic many-body methods for the same parameter sets.
  • domain assumption BCS approximation with a separable pairing force for the 1S0 neutron pairing gap (Eq. 21).
    Medium polarization is treated only as a global reduction factor 1/beta with beta taken from Lombardo & Schulze (2000); no self-consistent polarization calculation is performed.
  • domain assumption Local density approximation and semi-classical energy cost for vortices (Eqs. 23-27).
    The pinning energy is obtained by integrating local kinetic and condensation energy differences, neglecting quantum shell effects, vortex core structure, and multi-site lattice effects; the paper notes this and defers a lattice calculation to future work.
  • domain assumption Snowplow model assumptions in Sec. 2.6: straight rigid vortices, axial symmetry, and superfluid density rho_s = (1 - Yp)rho throughout the star.
    The glitch is modeled as a single vortex avalanche; entrainment between neutrons and protons is not included (future work). These assumptions directly shape the angular momentum transfer and the mass inference.
  • ad hoc to paper Spherical Wigner-Seitz droplets throughout the inner crust, with pasta phases neglected (Sec. 2.3).
    The calculation uses only spherical cell geometries and cannot find stable droplet solutions near the crust-core transition, exactly the region that provides the strongest pinning; the paper acknowledges this limitation explicitly.
  • standard math Unified EoS with crust-core transition defined by epsilon_uni < epsilon_non (Sec. 2.2).
    The crust-core boundary is obtained by comparing uniform and non-uniform energy densities, a standard construction in neutron star EoS modeling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring nuclear force with pulsar glitch observation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZOACYVRZ

@misc{pith2026241209219,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring nuclear force with pulsar glitch observation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZOACYVRZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09219}
}
read the original abstract

We connect nuclear forces to one of the most notable irregular behaviors observed in pulsars, already detected in approximately 6\% known pulsars, with increasingly accurate data expected from upcoming high-precision timing instruments on both ground and space. Built on Shang & Li (2021), we conduct a case study on the 2001 glitch of the Vela pulsar. For our purpose, we adopt the Relativistic Mean Field (RMF) model as the theoretical many-body framework to describe nuclear systems. We refit three representative RMF parameter sets (DD-ME2, PKDD, NL3), considering the uncertainties in nuclear matter saturation properties. Utilizing the resulting star structure, composition and nucleon properties in the medium obtained in a consistent manner, we calculate the pinning energy of superfluid vortex in the nuclear lattice in the inner crust. This leads to the evolution of associated pinning force that acts on the vortex, which can be confronted with observed glitch amplitude and short-time relaxation in the 2000 Vela glitch event, following the snowplow model of pulsar glitch. We discuss how the vortex configuration and pinning properties depend on the nuclear parameters, and find an interesting and dominant role of the nuclear symmetry energy slope on pinning strength.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09219 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Unified EoSs calculated with DD-ME2 (solid lines), PKDD (dashed lines), and NL3 (dotted lines) with the different symmetry energy slope. The vertical line with the same line style as the EoS represents the corresponding crust-core transition density. contributions from kinetic energy, εkin = k 4 F π 2 " 1 + z 2 2  √ 1 + z 2 4 − z 4 8 ln 1 + √ 1 + z 2 z !# , Pkin = k 4 F 3π 2 " 1 − 3z 2 2  √ 1 + z 2 4 + 3z 4 8 ln… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The neutron and proton densities (upper panels), neutron 1S0 pairing gap (middle panels), and neutron effective mass (lower panels) distributions within the WS cells at ρB= 0.00398 fm−3 (left panels), 0.0398 fm−3 (middle panels), and 0.08 fm−3 (right panels). The effective interaction is DD-ME2 with L0 = 30 MeV, β = 3.0. The gray dashed lines indicate the sizes of the droplet. for the reasonable estimation of the ki… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Wigner-Seitz cell size Rws (red solid lines), droplet size Rd (blue solid lines), and superfluid coherence length ξ (black dashed lines for β=2.0 and black dotted lines for β=3.0) for the inner crust with L0 = 30, 60, and 80 MeV. DD-ME2 is adopted for the isoscalar channel of the effective interaction. The core-crust transition densities are depicted by gray dashed lines. I(r1, r2) can be calculated under rigid-… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) M-R relations and (b) mass profiles calculated with the unified EoSs of DD-ME2 (solid lines), PKDD (dashed lines), and NL3 (dotted lines) with the different symmetry energy slope L0 =30, 40, 60, and 80 MeV. The mass-radius measure￾ments from GW observations for GW1…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The density profile of a cubic lattice in the xy plane for ρB = 0.05 fm−3 and z = 0. The effective inter￾action DD-ME2 with L0 = 30 MeV is adopted. The black dashed lines represent the boundary of the WS cell. The red dashed contours indicate the position of the vortex…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pinning forces calculated by DD-ME2 with L0 = 30, 80 MeV and β = 2, 3 from the outer-inner crust transition density ρoi to the crust-core transition density ρcc. acting the whole vortex line results in the critical an￾gular velocity lag ∆Ωcr = Fpin/F∗ mag, which is req…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pinning energies (upper panels) and pinning forces (lower panels) as a function of ρB for DD-ME2 (left panels), PKDD(middle panels), and NL3 (right panels) with L0 =30, 40, 60, 80 MeV and β = 2.0 and 3.0. The core-crust transition densities are depicted by the correspo…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The condensation energy per particle E sp cond and kinetic energy per particle E sp kin as a function of r in the cases of bare neutron mass and Dirac neutron mass. The effective interaction is DD-ME2 with L0 = 30 MeV. The matter distribution is calculated at ρB =0.006…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Pinning force Fpin, (b) Magnus force F ∗ mag, and (c) Critical angular momentum lag ∆Ωcr as the function of the distance of the vortex line to the rotational axis r. The black and green lines represent the results for L0 = 30 and 80 MeV, while solid and dashed line…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fraction of the coupled vorticity Ygl (upper panels) and observed step in spin-down rate ∆Ω˙ p/Ω˙ p (lower panels) as a function of NS mass M/M⊙ for DD-ME2 (left panels), PKDD(middle panels), and NL3 (right panels) with L0 =30, 40, 60, 80 MeV and β = 2.0 and 3.0. The …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The angular momentum transfer ∆L as a func￾tion of NS mass M, for three values of the scaling factor Rf . The snowplow model requires Ygl to lie between 0 and 1. The angular momentum transfer that satisfies the model re￾quirement is denoted by gray shadow, with two bl…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a)Pinning forces fpin and (b) observed step in spin-down rate ∆Ω˙ p/Ω˙ p for different vortex length. The effective interaction is DD-ME2 with L0 = 30 MeV. The polarization is taken as β = 3.0. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Unified QMF equation of state for neutron star matter: Static and dynamic properties

    nucl-th 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The quark mean-field model predicts larger crust clusters and a slower direct-Urca cooling phase than the relativistic mean-field model, while both reproduce the observed crustal cooling of the transient KS 1731-260.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    9 p 1 @n+ &M 3\

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    2017, Phys

    Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett, 119, 161101, 10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  5. [5]

    Ala\ na, A., Modugno, M., Capuzzi, P., & Jezek, D. M. 2024, Phys. Rev. A, 110, 023306, 10.1103/PhysRevA.110.023306

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.110.023306 2024

  6. [6]

    Alpar, M. A. 1977, Astrophys. J, 213, 527, 10.1086/155183

    work page doi:10.1086/155183 1977

  7. [7]

    A., Chau, H

    Alpar, M. A., Chau, H. F., Cheng, K. S., & Pines, D. 1993, Astrophys. J, 409, 345, 10.1086/172668

    doi:10.1086/172668 1993

  8. [8]

    A., Pines, D., Anderson, P

    Alpar, M. A., Pines, D., Anderson, P. W., & Shaham, J. 1984, Astrophys. J, 276, 325, 10.1086/161616

    doi:10.1086/161616 1984

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    W., & ITOH, N

    Anderson, P. W., & ITOH, N. 1975, Nature, 256, 25, 10.1038/256025a0

    1975 doi

  2. [10]

    Antonelli, M., Montoli, A., & Pizzochero, P. M. 2022, Insights Into the Physics of Neutron Star Interiors from Pulsar Glitches (WORLD SCIENTIFIC), 219--281, 10.1142/9789811220944_0007

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Antonopoulou, D., Haskell, B., & Espinoza, C. M. 2022, Rep. Prog. Phys, 85, 126901, 10.1088/1361-6633/ac9ced

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    D., Graber, V., & Palfreyman, J

    Ashton, G., Lasky, P. D., Graber, V., & Palfreyman, J. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 36, 844, 10.1038/s41550-019-0844-6

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    2008, Nucl

    Avogadro, P., Barranco, F., Broglia, R., & Vigezzi, E. 2008, Nucl. Phys. A, 811, 378, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.07.010

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    A., & Vigezzi, E

    Avogadro, P., Barranco, F., Broglia, R. A., & Vigezzi, E. 2007, Phys. Rev. C, 75, 012805, 10.1103/PhysRevC.75.012805

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    1998, Phys

    Balberg, S., & Barnea, N. 1998, Phys. Rev. C, 57, 409, 10.1103/PhysRevC.57.409

    1998 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, Mon

    Basu, A., Shaw, B., Antonopoulou, D., et al. 2021, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, 510, 4049, 10.1093/mnras/stab3336

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    1969, Nature, 224, 872, 10.1038/224872a0

    Baym, G., Pethick, C., Pines, D., & Ruderman, M. 1969, Nature, 224, 872, 10.1038/224872a0

    1969 doi

  10. [18]

    2003, Rev

    Bender, M., Heenen, P.-H., & Reinhard, P.-G. 2003, Rev. Mod. Phys, 75, 121, 10.1103/revmodphys.75.121

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, Few-Body System, 65, 10.1007/s00601-024-01949-7

    Bland, T., Ferlaino, F., Mannarelli, M., Poli, E., & Trabucco, S. 2024, Few-Body System, 65, 10.1007/s00601-024-01949-7

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    1977, Nucl

    Boguta, J., & Bodmer, A. 1977, Nucl. Phys. A, 292, 413, 10.1016/0375-9474(77)90626-1

    1977 doi

  13. [21]

    Campbell, L. J. 1979, Phys. Rev. Lett, 43, 1336, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.1336

    1979 doi

  14. [22]

    2013, Phys

    Chamel, N. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 011101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.011101

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    ---. 2024. 2412.05599

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Donati, P., & Pizzochero, P. M. 2004, Nucl. Phys. A, 742, 363, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.07.002

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    2006, Phys

    ---. 2006, Phys. Lett. B, 640, 74, 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.07.047

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    S., et al

    Dutra, M., Lourenco, O., Avancini, S. S., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. C, 90, 055203, 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.055203

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    I., & Baym, G

    Epstein, R. I., & Baym, G. 1988, Astrophys. J, 328, 680, 10.1086/166325

    1988 doi

  20. [29]

    F., Chamel, N., Mutafchieva, Y

    Fantina, A. F., Chamel, N., Mutafchieva, Y. D., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. C, 93, 015801, 10.1103/physrevc.93.015801

    2016 doi

  21. [30]

    L., Walecka, J

    Fetter, A. L., Walecka, J. D., & Kadanoff, L. P. 1971, Physics Today, 25, 54. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5661190

    1971

  22. [31]

    Fuchs, C., Lenske, H., & Wolter, H. H. 1995, Phys. Rev. C, 52, 3043, 10.1103/PhysRevC.52.3043

    1995 doi

  23. [32]

    Glendenning, N. K. 1996, Compact Stars: Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics and General Relativity (Springer US)

    1996

  24. [33]

    2018, Astrophys

    Graber, V., Cumming, A., & Andersson, N. 2018, Astrophys. J, 865, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad776

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    2012, Jour

    Grill, F., & Pizzochero, P. 2012, Jour. Phys. Conf. Ser, 342, 012004, 10.1088/1742-6596/342/1/012004

    2012 doi

  26. [35]

    Gügercinoğlu, E., & Alpar, M. A. 2020, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, 496, 2506, 10.1093/mnras/staa1672

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    2015, Inter

    Haskell, B., & Melatos, A. 2015, Inter. Jour. Mod. Phys. D, 24, 1530008, 10.1142/s0218271815300086

    2015 doi

  28. [37]

    M., & Seveso, S

    Haskell, B., Pizzochero, P. M., & Seveso, S. 2013, Astrophys. J, 764, L25, 10.1088/2041-8205/764/2/l25

    2013 doi

  29. [38]

    M., & Sidery, T

    Haskell, B., Pizzochero, P. M., & Sidery, T. 2011, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, 420, 658, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20080.x

    2011

  30. [39]

    G., & Li, B.-A

    Hooker, J., Newton, W. G., & Li, B.-A. 2013, Jour. Phys. Conf. Ser, 420, 012153, 10.1088/1742-6596/420/1/012153

    2013 doi

  31. [40]

    1996, Nucl

    Khodel, V., Khodel, V., & Clark, J. 1996, Nucl. Phys. A, 598, 390, https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(95)00477-7

    1996 doi

  32. [41]

    M., Roca-Maza, X., & Vigezzi, E

    Klausner, P., Barranco, F., Pizzochero, P. M., Roca-Maza, X., & Vigezzi, E. 2023, Phys. Rev. C, 108, 035808, 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.035808

    2023 doi

  33. [42]

    A., Niksi \' c , T., Vretenar, D., & Ring, P

    Lalazissis, G. A., Niksi \' c , T., Vretenar, D., & Ring, P. 2005, Phys. Rev. C, 71, 024312, 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.024312

    2005 doi

  34. [43]

    M., Wang, J

    Li, A., Dong, J. M., Wang, J. B., & Xu, R. X. 2016, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 223, 16, 10.3847/0067-0049/223/1/16

    2016 doi

  35. [44]

    Y., Zhou , E

    Li , A., Zhu , Z. Y., Zhou , E. P., et al. 2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 28, 19, 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.07.001

    2020 doi

  36. [45]

    J., & Sedrakian, A

    Li, J. J., & Sedrakian, A. 2019, Phys. Rev. C, 100, 015809, 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.015809

    2019 doi

  37. [46]

    P., Ge , M

    Liu , P., Yuan , J. P., Ge , M. Y., et al. 2024 a , , 533, 4274, 10.1093/mnras/stae1973

    2024 doi

  38. [47]

    2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15022, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15022

    ---. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15022, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15022

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [48]

    Lombardo, U., & Schulze, H. J. 2000, Lect.Notes Phys.578:30-53,2001. astro-ph/0012209

    2000 arXiv

  40. [49]

    V., & Zhou, S.-G

    Long, W., Meng, J., Giai, N. V., & Zhou, S.-G. 2004, Phys. Rev. C, 69, 034319, 10.1103/PhysRevC.69.034319

    2004 doi

  41. [50]

    E., Johnston, S., Dunn, L., et al

    Lower, M. E., Johnston, S., Dunn, L., et al. 2021, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, 508, 3251, 10.1093/mnras/stab2678

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    2023, Astrophys

    Melatos, A., & Millhouse, M. 2023, Astrophys. J, 948, 106, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbb6e

    2023 doi

  43. [52]

    1973, Nuc

    Negele, J., & Vautherin, D. 1973, Nuc. Phys. A, 207, 298, 10.1016/0375-9474(73)90349-7

    1973 doi

  44. [53]

    Neill, D., Tsang, D., & Newton, W. G. 2024, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, 532, 827, 10.1093/mnras/stae1481

    2024 doi

  45. [54]

    G., Murphy, K., Hooker, J., & Li, B.-A

    Newton, W. G., Murphy, K., Hooker, J., & Li, B.-A. 2013, Astrophys. J. Lett, 779, L4, 10.1088/2041-8205/779/1/l4

    2013 doi

  46. [55]

    2011, Prog

    Nikšić, T., Vretenar, D., & Ring, P. 2011, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 66, 519, 10.1016/j.ppnp.2011.01.055

    2011 doi

  47. [56]

    2017, Rev

    Oertel, M., Hempel, M., Kl\"ahn, T., & Typel, S. 2017, Rev. Mod. Phys, 89, 015007, 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015007

    2017 doi

  48. [57]

    R., & Volkoff, G

    Oppenheimer, J. R., & Volkoff, G. M. 1939, Phys. Rev, 055, 374, 10.1103/PhysRev.55.374

    1939 doi

  49. [58]

    2007, Phys

    Oyamatsu, K., & Iida, K. 2007, Phys. Rev. C, 75, 015801, 10.1103/physrevc.75.015801

    2007 doi

  50. [59]

    Pizzochero, P. M. 2011, Astrophys. J., 743, L20, 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/l20

    2011 doi

  51. [60]

    M., Viverit, L., & Broglia, R

    Pizzochero, P. M., Viverit, L., & Broglia, R. A. 1997, Phys. Rev. Lett., 79, 3347, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.3347

    1997 doi

  52. [61]

    Pizzochero, P. M. , Montoli, A. , & Antonelli, M. 2020, A&A, 636, A101, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937019

    2020 doi

  53. [62]

    J., et al

    Poli, E., Bland, T., White, S. J., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett, 131, 223401, 10.1103/physrevlett.131.223401

    2023 doi

  54. [63]

    Reinhard, P. G. 1989, Rep. Prog. Phys., 52, 439, 10.1088/0034-4885/52/4/002

    1989 doi

  55. [64]

    E., Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Ray, P. S., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett, 918, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81

    2021 doi

  56. [65]

    1996, Prog

    Ring, P. 1996, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 37, 193, 10.1016/0146-6410(96)00054-3

    1996 doi

  57. [66]

    2021, Phys

    Rong, Y.-T., Tu, Z.-H., & Zhou, S.-G. 2021, Phys. Rev. C, 104, 054321, 10.1103/physrevc.104.054321

    2021 doi

  58. [67]

    2020, Phys

    Rong, Y.-T., Zhao, P., & Zhou, S.-G. 2020, Phys. Lett. B, 807, 135533, 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135533

    2020

  59. [68]

    2000, Phys

    Schaffner-Bielich, J., & Gal, A. 2000, Phys. Rev. C, 62, 034311, 10.1103/PhysRevC.62.034311

    2000 doi

  60. [69]

    Serot, B. D. 1992, Rept. Prog. Phys", 55, 1855, 10.1088/0034-4885/55/11/001

    1992 doi

  61. [70]

    M., Grill, F., & Haskell, B

    Seveso, S., Pizzochero, P. M., Grill, F., & Haskell, B. 2016, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, 455, 3952, 10.1093/mnras/stv2579

    2016 doi

  62. [71]

    M., & Haskell, B

    Seveso, S., Pizzochero, P. M., & Haskell, B. 2012, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, 427, 1089, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21906.x

    2012

  63. [72]

    2021, Astrophys

    Shang, X., & Li, A. 2021, Astrophys. J, 923, 108, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e94

    2021 doi

  64. [73]

    2002, Phys

    Shen, H. 2002, Phys. Rev. C, 65, 035802, 10.1103/PhysRevC.65.035802

    2002 doi

  65. [74]

    2023, Astrophys

    Sun, X., Miao, Z., Sun, B., & Li, A. 2023, Astrophys. J, 942, 55, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d9a

    2023 doi

  66. [75]

    Y., & Ring, P

    Tian, Y., Ma, Z. Y., & Ring, P. 2009, Phys. Lett. B, 676, 44, 10.1016/j.physletb.2009.04.067

    2009 doi

  67. [76]

    Tolman, R. C. 1939, Phys. Rev., 55, 364, 10.1103/PhysRev.55.364

    1939 doi

  68. [77]

    S., & Tsakadze, S

    Tsakadze, J. S., & Tsakadze, S. J. 1980, J. Low. Temp. Phys, 39, 649, 10.1007/bf00114899

    1980 doi

  69. [78]

    2022, Astrophys

    Tu, Z.-H., & Zhou, S.-G. 2022, Astrophys. J, 925, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3996

    2022 doi

  70. [79]

    1999, Nucl

    Typel, S., & Wolter, H. 1999, Nucl. Phys. A, 656, 331, 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00310-3

    1999 doi

  71. [80]

    L., et al

    Vinciguerra, S., Salmi, T., Watts, A. L., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J, 961, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfb83

    2024 doi

  72. [81]

    1974, Ann

    Walecka, J. 1974, Ann. Phys, 83, 491, 10.1016/0003-4916(74)90208-5

    1974 doi

  73. [82]

    N., & Shen, H

    Wang, Y. N., & Shen, H. 2010, Phys. Rev. C, 81, 025801, 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.025801

    2010 doi

  74. [83]

    2021, Phys

    Wu, X., Bao, S., Shen, H., & Xu, R. 2021, Phys. Rev. C, 104, 015802, 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.015802

    2021 doi

  75. [84]

    2019, Res

    Yan, Y. 2019, Res. Astron. Astrophys, 19, 072, 10.1088/1674-4527/19/5/72

    2019 doi

  76. [85]

    N., Hobbs, G., et al

    Yu, M., Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G., et al. 2012, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, 429, 688, 10.1093/mnras/sts366

    2012 doi

  77. [86]

    2022, Universe, 8, 641, 10.3390/universe8120641

    Zhou, S., Gügercinoğlu, E., Yuan, J., Ge, M., & Yu, C. 2022, Universe, 8, 641, 10.3390/universe8120641

    2022 doi

  78. [87]

    2023, , 108, 025809, 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.025809

    Zhu , Z., Li , A., Hu , J., & Shen , H. 2023, , 108, 025809, 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.025809

    2023 doi

  79. [88]

    2024, Astron

    Zubieta, E., García, F., del Palacio, S., et al. 2024, Astron. Astrophys, 689, A191, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450441

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.