pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21379 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · nucl-th

Bayesian Inference of Dense-Matter Equations of State from Small-Radius Compact Stars with Twin-Star Scenarios

Xieyuan Dong , Hong Shen , Jinniu Hu , Ying Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 21:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE nucl-th
keywords dense matterneutron starsequation of statephase transitiontwin starsBayesian inferencetidal deformabilitycompact stars
0
0 comments X

The pith

Small-radius compact stars can be hybrid twins from a first-order phase transition in dense matter

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

The paper applies Bayesian inference to construct equations of state for neutron star matter that include both hadronic and quark phases separated by a strong first-order phase transition. It examines whether the recently identified small-radius objects HESS J1731-347 and XTE J1814-338 can be accommodated as twin stars on a disconnected hybrid branch. If so, the data favor a transition around 2.7 to 2.8 times nuclear density with a large energy jump and high post-transition sound speed. This setup produces compact stars with radii of 6 to 7 kilometers at masses of 1.2 to 1.4 solar masses while strongly reducing their tidal deformability. Such findings would offer a way to detect phase transitions through future gravitational-wave and radius observations of merging neutron stars.

Core claim

Using a meta-model for the hadronic sector constrained by NICER measurements of several pulsars including the massive PSR J0740+6620, and introducing a constant-speed-of-sound quark matter after the transition, the analysis constrains the phase transition parameters using the small-radius candidates. The preferred values generate a disconnected branch of hybrid stars with the quoted small radii and suppressed tidal deformability, providing a characteristic signature for identifying phase transitions.

What carries the argument

Bayesian posterior sampling over hadronic meta-EOS parameters plus the transition density, energy jump, and constant sound speed of the quark phase, fitted to mass-radius data from NICER and the two small-radius candidates to produce twin-star configurations.

Load-bearing premise

That the two small-radius candidates are hybrid stars sitting on the disconnected twin branch rather than ordinary hadronic stars or other exotic configurations.

What would settle it

A future radius measurement for HESS J1731-347 or XTE J1814-338 showing a value significantly above 7 km, or a tidal deformability measurement for similar-mass stars that matches the unsuppressed hadronic value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21379 by Hong Shen, Jinniu Hu, Xieyuan Dong, Ying Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Marginalized and joint posterior distributions of the nuclear matter parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Hadronic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Marginalized and joint posterior distributions of the CSS parameters inferred from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Reconstructed post-transition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Posterior reconstructions of (a) the EOS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate dense-matter equations of state (EOSs) within a Bayesian framework, with particular emphasis on whether recent small-radius compact-star candidates can be accommodated in a twin-star scenario. For the hadronic sector, we adopt a meta-modeling EOS constrained by the NICER mass--radius measurements of PSR J0030$+$0451, PSR J0437$-$4715, PSR J0614$-$3329, and the massive pulsar PSR J0740$+$6620. The hadronic inference indicates that PSR J0614$-$3329 favors a somewhat softer EOS than the other two \(\sim1.4\,M_\odot\) pulsars, while the \(\sim2\,M_\odot\) constraint prevents the EOS from becoming too soft. We then introduce a strong first-order phase transition through a constant-speed-of-sound quark-matter segment. Using HESS J1731$-$347 and XTE J1814$-$338 to constrain the phase-transition parameters, we find a preferred transition density of \(n_\mathrm{t}\sim2.7\text{--}2.8\,n_0\), a sizable energy-density jump of \(600\text{--}700\) MeV, and a relatively large post-transition sound speed of \(c_s^2/c^2\sim0.85\). Such a phase transition generates a disconnected hybrid branch with radii of about \(6\text{--}7\) km at masses around \(1.2\text{--}1.4\,M_\odot\), and strongly suppresses the dimensionless tidal deformability relative to the purely hadronic branch. This pronounced change in tidal deformability is a characteristic signature of the twin-star mechanism and may provide an important observational tool for identifying phase transitions in neutron-star matter in future multimessenger measurements. These results show that small-radius compact stars can provide direct constraints on both the strength of a first-order phase transition and the stiffness of the post-transition phase in dense matter.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a Bayesian framework to infer dense-matter equations of state by combining a hadronic meta-model constrained by NICER mass-radius measurements of PSR J0030+0451, PSR J0437-4715, PSR J0614-3329, and PSR J0740+6620 with a first-order phase transition to a constant-sound-speed quark-matter phase. The phase-transition parameters (transition density n_t, energy-density jump Δε, and post-transition sound speed c_s²) are constrained using the small-radius candidates HESS J1731-347 and XTE J1814-338, interpreted as lying on a disconnected hybrid twin-star branch. The analysis yields n_t ≈ 2.7–2.8 n_0, Δε ≈ 600–700 MeV, and c_s²/c² ≈ 0.85, resulting in a hybrid branch with radii of 6–7 km at 1.2–1.4 M_⊙ and significantly reduced tidal deformability compared to the hadronic branch.

Significance. If the twin-star interpretation of the small-radius objects holds, this work provides concrete posterior constraints on the strength and location of a first-order phase transition in dense matter and identifies a clear observational signature in the tidal deformability that could be tested with future gravitational-wave detections. The coherent Bayesian pipeline, use of a hadronic meta-model already constrained by four NICER pulsars plus the 2 M_⊙ limit, and reporting of specific posterior ranges on the transition parameters are strengths that support reproducibility.

major comments (2)
  1. [phase-transition constraints section] The section describing the constraints from HESS J1731-347 and XTE J1814-338: the central claim that the phase transition generates a disconnected hybrid branch with 6–7 km radii at 1.2–1.4 M_⊙ rests on the assumption that these two objects lie on the twin branch. This assignment directly determines the fitted values of n_t, Δε, and c_s²; the manuscript does not report an independent test showing that the small radii cannot be accommodated by a purely hadronic EOS softer than the meta-model median while still satisfying the 2 M_⊙ bound.
  2. [results on tidal deformability] The results paragraph on tidal deformability (following the parameter posteriors): the claimed strong suppression of dimensionless tidal deformability is presented as a characteristic signature of the twin-star mechanism, but it follows algebraically from the fitted energy-density jump and post-transition sound speed chosen to reproduce the input small-radius data under the twin-branch assumption, rather than constituting an independent prediction.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract and introduction] The abstract and introduction use n_0 without an explicit definition or reference value in the main text; add a sentence clarifying the saturation density employed.
  2. [figures] Figure captions for the mass-radius and tidal-deformability plots should explicitly state whether the plotted hybrid branch corresponds to the median posterior or a specific sample.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and presentation of our Bayesian analysis of twin-star scenarios. We respond to each major comment below, indicating revisions where the manuscript can be improved without altering its core assumptions or results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [phase-transition constraints section] The section describing the constraints from HESS J1731-347 and XTE J1814-338: the central claim that the phase transition generates a disconnected hybrid branch with 6–7 km radii at 1.2–1.4 M_⊙ rests on the assumption that these two objects lie on the twin branch. This assignment directly determines the fitted values of n_t, Δε, and c_s²; the manuscript does not report an independent test showing that the small radii cannot be accommodated by a purely hadronic EOS softer than the meta-model median while still satisfying the 2 M_⊙ bound.

    Authors: The analysis is framed as an exploration of the twin-star scenario for the small-radius candidates, using the hadronic meta-model posterior already constrained by the four NICER pulsars and the 2 M_⊙ limit. This posterior inherently limits how soft the hadronic EOS can become. In the revised version we will add a short discussion (with reference to the existing hadronic posterior) showing that the radius range permitted by the hadronic meta-model for 1.2–1.4 M_⊙ stars remains above ~11 km, so that the observed 6–7 km radii cannot be reproduced without invoking the disconnected hybrid branch. This addition will make explicit why the twin-star assignment is required within our modeling framework. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [results on tidal deformability] The results paragraph on tidal deformability (following the parameter posteriors): the claimed strong suppression of dimensionless tidal deformability is presented as a characteristic signature of the twin-star mechanism, but it follows algebraically from the fitted energy-density jump and post-transition sound speed chosen to reproduce the input small-radius data under the twin-branch assumption, rather than constituting an independent prediction.

    Authors: We accept that the numerical values of the tidal deformability are a direct consequence of the phase-transition parameters fitted to the small-radius data under the twin-star hypothesis. The pronounced suppression relative to the hadronic branch is nonetheless a distinctive feature of the disconnected hybrid sequence. We will revise the paragraph to describe this suppression as a derived consequence of the twin-star EOS that could serve as an observable signature in future gravitational-wave measurements, rather than an independent prediction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Phase-transition parameters fitted to small-radius candidates generate the twin-star branch and tidal suppression by construction

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Using HESS J1731−347 and XTE J1814−338 to constrain the phase-transition parameters, we find a preferred transition density of n_t∼2.7–2.8 n_0, a sizable energy-density jump of 600–700 MeV, and a relatively large post-transition sound speed of c_s^2/c^2∼0.85. Such a phase transition generates a disconnected hybrid branch with radii of about 6–7 km at masses around 1.2–1.4 M_⊙, and strongly suppresses the dimensionless tidal deformability relative to the purely hadronic branch."

    The three transition parameters are obtained by fitting to the radii of the two named objects while assuming those objects lie on the hybrid twin branch. The statement that the transition 'generates' a branch whose radii match the input data (6–7 km) and whose tidal deformability is suppressed is therefore a direct consequence of the fit rather than a derived or falsifiable result.

full rationale

The paper constrains the hadronic meta-model independently with NICER pulsars and the 2 M_⊙ limit. It then introduces an abrupt first-order transition followed by a constant-sound-speed quark segment whose three parameters (n_t, energy jump, c_s^2) are fitted directly to HESS J1731-347 and XTE J1814-338 under the explicit premise that these objects occupy the disconnected hybrid branch. The subsequent claim that this transition 'generates a disconnected hybrid branch with radii of about 6–7 km' and 'strongly suppresses the dimensionless tidal deformability' is therefore an algebraic restatement of the fitted values rather than an independent prediction. No alternative hadronic EOS or systematic-radius-uncertainty test is shown to falsify the twin-star assignment, so the central signatures reduce to the input assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a meta-model parametrization of the hadronic EOS, the assumption of a sharp first-order transition, and a constant-sound-speed parametrization of the quark phase; all transition parameters are determined by fitting to the two small-radius objects.

free parameters (3)
  • transition density n_t
    Fitted to HESS J1731-347 and XTE J1814-338 data to produce the observed small radii.
  • energy-density jump Delta epsilon
    Fitted parameter controlling the size of the discontinuity that creates the twin branch.
  • post-transition sound speed c_s^2
    Fitted to remain high (~0.85) while still satisfying the 2 M_sun constraint.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The hadronic sector can be described by a meta-model whose parameters are constrained solely by the listed NICER pulsars.
    Stated in the abstract as the starting point for the Bayesian inference.
  • domain assumption Quark matter after the transition is adequately modeled by a constant sound speed.
    Explicit modeling choice used to close the EOS.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5677 in / 1709 out tokens · 45809 ms · 2026-05-09T21:30:54.728758+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Can a Slow and Strong Phase Transition in Neutron Stars Relieve Major Compact-Star Observation Tensions?

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Slow strong hadron-quark phase transitions allow stable hybrid-star branches that accommodate both high-mass and low-radius observations in two viable patterns from a parameter scan.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    twin-star

    from NICER, the compact objects HESS J1731−347, withM= 0.77 +0.20 −0.17 M⊙ and R= 10.4 +0.86 −0.78 km [44], and XTE J1814−338, withM= 1.21 +0.05 −0.05 M⊙ andR= 7.0 +0.4 −0.4 km [45]. While PSR J0614−3329 may still be accommodated within purely hadronic descrip- 3 tions, the extreme compactness inferred for XTE J1814−338 and the low-mass nature of HESS J17...

    work page 1928

  2. [2]

    Jaminon and C

    M. Jaminon and C. Mahaux, Physical Review C40, 354 (1989)

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    J. Hu, Y. Zhang, E. Epelbaum, U.-G. Meißner, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C96, 034307 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    C. Wang, J. Hu, Y. Zhang, and H. Shen, The Astrophysical Journal897, 96 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Akmal, V

    A. Akmal, V. Pandharipande, and D. Ravenhall, Physical Review C58, 1804 (1998)

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    J. R. Stone, J. Miller, R. Koncewicz, P. Stevenson, and M. Strayer, Physical Review C68, 034324 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    S.-P. Wang, R. Wang, J.-T. Ye, and L.-W. Chen, Physical Review C109, 054623 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Duan and M

    M. Duan and M. Urban, Physical Review C110, 065806 (2024)

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Bender, P.-H

    M. Bender, P.-H. Heenen, and P.-G. Reinhard, Reviews of Modern Physics75, 121 (2003)

    work page 2003

  10. [10]

    Gonzalez-Boquera, M

    C. Gonzalez-Boquera, M. Centelles, X. Vi˜ nas, and L. Robledo, Physics Letters B779, 195 (2018)

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Vi˜ nas, C

    X. Vi˜ nas, C. Gonzalez-Boquera, M. Centelles, C. Mondal, and L. M. Robledo, Symmetry13, 1613 (2021)

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Hu, and P. Liu, Physical Review C97, 015805 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    J. Hu, S. Bao, Y. Zhang, K. Nakazato, K. Sumiyoshi, and H. Shen, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2020, 043D01 (2020)

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Huang, J

    K. Huang, J. Hu, Y. Zhang, and H. Shen, Nucl. Phys. Rev.39, 135 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Huang, H

    K. Huang, H. Shen, J. Hu, and Y. Zhang, Physical Review D109, 043036 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    B. Y. Sun, W. H. Long, J. Meng, and U. Lombardo, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics78, 065805 (2008)

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    Z.-Y. Zhu, A. Li, J.-N. Hu, and H. Sagawa, Physical Review C94, 045803 (2016)

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    Z. W. Liu, Z. Qian, R. Y. Xing, J. R. Niu, and B. Y. Sun, Physical Review C97, 025801 (2018)

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Lindblom, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology82, 103011 (2010)

    L. Lindblom, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology82, 103011 (2010). 21

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    M. F. O’Boyle, C. Markakis, N. Stergioulas, and J. S. Read, Physical Review D102, 083027 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Physical Review C97, 025805 (2018)

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Physical Review C97, 025806 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Zhang, B.-A

    N.-B. Zhang, B.-A. Li, and J. Xu, The Astrophysical Journal859, 90 (2018)

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Cai and B.-A

    B.-J. Cai and B.-A. Li, The European Physical Journal A61, 55 (2025)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Xie and B.-A

    W.-J. Xie and B.-A. Li, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics48, 025110 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Huang, G

    C. Huang, G. Raaijmakers, A. L. Watts, L. Tolos, and C. Providˆ encia, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society529, 4650 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Huang, L

    C. Huang, L. Tolos, C. Providˆ encia, and A. Watts, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society536, 3262 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Xie and B.-A

    W.-J. Xie and B.-A. Li, The Astrophysical Journal899, 4 (2020)

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Malik and C

    T. Malik and C. Providˆ encia, Physical Review D106, 063024 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Carvalho, M

    V. Carvalho, M. Ferreira, T. Malik, and C. Providˆ encia, Physical Review D108, 043031 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    J. Zhou, J. Xu, and P. Papakonstantinou, Physical Review C107, 055803 (2023)

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    B.-A. Li, X. Grundler, W.-J. Xie, and N.-B. Zhang, Physical Review D110, 103040 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Ferreira and C

    M. Ferreira and C. Providˆ encia, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021(07), 011

    work page

  34. [34]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, and K. Murase, Physical Review D98, 023019 (2018)

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    W. Zhou, J. Hu, Y. Zhang, and H. Shen, The Astrophysical Journal950, 186 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Han, S.-P

    M.-Z. Han, S.-P. Tang, and Y.-Z. Fan, The Astrophysical Journal950, 77 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    W. Zhou, H. Shen, J. Hu, and Y. Zhang, Physical Review D110, 043017 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Guo, J.-Y

    L.-J. Guo, J.-Y. Xiong, Y. Ma, and Y.-L. Ma, The Astrophysical Journal965, 47 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Clark, I

    J. Clark, I. S. Heng, M. Pitkin, and G. Woan, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravita- tion, and Cosmology76, 043003 (2007)

    work page 2007

  40. [40]

    ¨Ozel, G

    F. ¨Ozel, G. Baym, and T. G¨ uver, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology82, 101301 (2010)

    work page 2010

  41. [41]

    Salmi, D

    T. Salmi, D. Choudhury, Y. Kini, T. E. Riley, S. Vinciguerra, A. L. Watts, M. T. Wolff, Z. Arzoumanian, S. Bogdanov, D. Chakrabarty, et al., The Astrophysical Journal974, 294 (2024). 22

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Vinciguerra, T

    S. Vinciguerra, T. Salmi, A. L. Watts, D. Choudhury, T. E. Riley, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, Y. Kini, S. Guillot, D. Chakrabarty, et al., The Astrophysical Journal961, 62 (2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Choudhury, T

    D. Choudhury, T. Salmi, S. Vinciguerra, T. E. Riley, Y. Kini, A. L. Watts, B. Dorsman, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, P. S. Ray, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters971, L20 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Mauviard, S

    L. Mauviard, S. Guillot, T. Salmi, D. Choudhury, B. Dorsman, D. Gonz´ alez-Caniulef, M. Hoogkamer, D. Huppenkothen, C. Kazantsev, Y. Kini, J.-F. Olive, P. Stammler, A. L. Watts, M. Mendes, N. Rutherford, A. Schwenk, I. Svensson, S. Bogdanov, M. Kerr, P. S. Ray, L. Guillemot, I. Cognard, and G. Theureau, The Astrophysical Journal995, 60 (2025)

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    Doroshenko, V

    V. Doroshenko, V. Suleimanov, G. P¨ uhlhofer, and A. Santangelo, Nature Astronomy6, 1444 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Y. Kini, T. Salmi, S. Vinciguerra, A. L. Watts, A. Bilous, D. K. Galloway, E. van der Wateren, G. P. Khalsa, S. Bogdanov, J. Buchner, et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society535, 1507 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Yang, C.-M

    S.-H. Yang, C.-M. Pi, and F. Weber, Physical Review D111, 043037 (2025)

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    Yang and F

    S. Yang and F. Weber, Chinese Physics Letters (2025)

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    Laskos-Patkos and C

    P. Laskos-Patkos and C. C. Moustakidis, Physical Review D111, 063058 (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. M. Pretel, and R. Xu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01371 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Veselsk` y, V

    M. Veselsk` y, V. Petousis, P. Koliogiannis, C. C. Moustakidis, and J. Leja, Physical Review D 111, L061308 (2025)

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    2025, arXiv e-prints

    T. Zhou and C. Huang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08662 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Z¨ ollner and B

    R. Z¨ ollner and B. K¨ ampfer, Astronomy4, 10 (2025)

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    L. L. Lopes, Astrophysics and Space Science370, 79 (2025)

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    U. H. Gerlach, Physical Review172, 1325 (1968)

    work page 1968

  56. [56]

    M. G. Alford, S. Han, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D88, 083013 (2013)

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    Zhang and B.-A

    N.-B. Zhang and B.-A. Li, The European Physical Journal A61, 31 (2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Grundler and B.-A

    X. Grundler and B.-A. Li, Physical Review D112, 103012 (2025)

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    Christian, J

    J.-E. Christian, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and S. Rosswog, Physical Review D109, 063035 (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    Naseri, G

    M. Naseri, G. Bozzola, and V. Paschalidis, Physical Review D110, 044037 (2024)

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    L¨ u and D

    W. L¨ u and D. Wen, Physical Review D112, 063036 (2025)

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    Blacker and A

    S. Blacker and A. Bauswein, Physical Review D112, 123041 (2025). 23

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    Z. Yang, T. Zeng, Y. Yan, W.-L. Yuan, C. Zhang, and E. Zhou, Physical Review D113, 023021 (2026)

    work page 2026

  64. [64]

    X. Dong, H. Shen, J. Hu, and Y. Zhang, Physical Review D112, 063043 (2025)

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    Zhang and B.-A

    N.-B. Zhang and B.-A. Li, The Astrophysical Journal879, 99 (2019)

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    Zhang and B.-A

    N.-B. Zhang and B.-A. Li, The Astrophysical Journal893, 61 (2020)

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    Zhang and B.-A

    N.-B. Zhang and B.-A. Li, The Astrophysical Journal902, 38 (2020)

    work page 2020

  68. [68]

    Zhang and B.-A

    N.-B. Zhang and B.-A. Li, The Astrophysical Journal921, 111 (2021)

    work page 2021

  69. [69]

    Seidov, Soviet Astronomy, Vol

    Z. Seidov, Soviet Astronomy, Vol. 15, p. 34715, 347 (1971)

    work page 1971

  70. [70]

    R. C. Tolman, Physical Review55, 364 (1939)

    work page 1939

  71. [71]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Physical Review55, 374 (1939)

    work page 1939

  72. [72]

    Hinderer, B

    T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang, and J. S. Read, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology81, 123016 (2010)

    work page 2010

  73. [73]

    J. S. Read, L. Baiotti, J. D. Creighton, J. L. Friedman, B. Giacomazzo, K. Kyutoku, C. Markakis, L. Rezzolla, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology88, 044042 (2013)

    work page 2013

  74. [74]

    10.5281/zenodo.18996933. 24

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.18996933