Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 83 references

Exploring the impact of $\Delta$-isobars on Neutron Star

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that Δ-isobars can appear in neutron star cores at 2–3 times nuclear saturation density, and that their presence alters the mass-radius relation and tidal deformability, with the canonical radius shifting by up to 1.7 km.

desk verdict Useful coupling scan for NLD RMF with Delta isobars, but the headline results rest on coupling choices that violate the paper's own stated constraint, and the abstract contradicts the body on R1.4. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01201 v3 pith:JXMBQLT5 submitted 2024-12-02 nucl-th

Rashmita Jena , S.K. Biswal , Padmalaya Dash , R.N. Panda , M. Bhuyan This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords neutronstarΔ-isobarsrelativisticmean-fieldmodelequationofstatetidaldeformabilitymass-radiusrelationNLDparametersetGW170817
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

Neutron star cores are dense enough that strange baryons and heavier resonances may form, and this paper asks whether Δ-isobars—the lightest baryon resonances—can be among them. Using relativistic mean-field models with 21 parameter sets, the authors show that the Δ-isobar production density is highly sensitive to the meson coupling constants, and that within a plausible range (Δ potential between −150 and −50 MeV), Δ-isobars can appear at 2–3 times saturation density. For the NLD parameter set, which satisfies all current NICER and GW170817 constraints, Δ-isobars can even populate before Λ0 hyperons for certain couplings. The presence of Δ-isobars changes the stiffness of the equation of state, shifting the canonical radius R1.4 by up to 1.7 km and modifying the tidal deformability Λ1.4. The paper concludes that Δ-isobar degrees of freedom should be included when predicting neutron star bulk properties.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Δ-isobar, the lightest spin-3/2 baryon resonance (mass ~1232 MeV), added to the relativistic mean-field (RMF) Lagrangian alongside the nucleon octet and hyperons. The Δ-meson coupling constants XσΔ, XωΔ, and XρΔ control the scalar, vector, and isovector interactions; the paper tunes these within the chosen potential range to shift the onset density. The machinery includes β-equilibrium conditions (e.g., μΔ− = 2μn − μp), charge neutrality, the TOV equation for mass-radius, and the Love number calculation for tidal deformability. The key dependence is that XρΔ, which links to the symmetry energy, most strongly controls the threshold density and the radius shift.

What would settle it

A measurement of the Δ-isobar single-particle potential in neutron-rich matter from heavy-ion collisions or chiral effective field theory that places UΔ outside −150 to −50 MeV, or a theoretical demonstration that 0 ≤ XσΔ − XρΔ ≤ 0.2 is not physically realizable, would undercut the paper's quantitative predictions. Alternatively, a future precise mass-radius observation that falls outside the NLD+Δ band for the couplings used here would falsify the representative calculation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Δ-isobars can be realized in neutron star cores at densities 2–3 times nuclear saturation, provided the Δ-meson coupling constants lie in the range UΔ ∈ [−150, −50] MeV with 0 ≤ XσΔ − XρΔ ≤ 0.2. By varying XσΔ, XρΔ, and XωΔ individually, the paper shows that the threshold density of the Δ− state can be moved below that of the Λ0 hyperon, changing the particle fraction sequence in the core. Incorporating Δ-isobars softens the EOS when XσΔ is large (attractive σ field) and stiffens it when XωΔ or XρΔ is large (repulsive ω and ρ fields). For the NLD parameter set, changing XρΔ from 0 to 1 with XσΔ = 1.2 increases the canonical radius R1.4 by about 1.7 km, and the canonical tidal deformability Λ1.4 varies strongly with the couplings, crossing the GW170817 window. The paper's conclusion is an argumentative justification for including Δ-isobar degrees of freedom in neutron star calculations.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's predictions rest on the assumed range for the Δ-isobar potential in neutron-rich matter, UΔ between −150 and −50 MeV, and the condition 0 ≤ XσΔ − XρΔ ≤ 0.2; if the real potential or coupling combination lies outside this range, the onset densities and radius changes would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Δ-isobars can appear in neutron star cores at 2–3 times saturation density, adding a new baryonic degree of freedom beyond hyperons.
  • The canonical radius R1.4 can change by up to 1.7 km depending on the Δ-ρ coupling, so mass-radius measurements are sensitive to the Δ-isobar interaction strength.
  • For suitable couplings, the Δ− state appears before the Λ0 hyperon, altering the expected core composition order.
  • The canonical tidal deformability Λ1.4 moves into or out of the GW170817 window as the Δ-couplings vary, making tidal measurements a possible probe of Δ-isobar physics.
  • The NLD parameter set, with certain Δ-couplings, satisfies all current NICER and GW170817 constraints, so Δ-isobars are not excluded by observation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The chosen UΔ window (−150 to −50 MeV) is not directly measured for neutron-rich matter; if future heavy-ion or microscopic calculations place the Δ potential outside this range, the quantitative threshold densities and the 1.7 km shift would need revision.
  • Because XρΔ is tied to the symmetry energy, tighter empirical constraints on the symmetry energy slope could indirectly test the paper's prediction that low XρΔ makes Δ− appear earlier.
  • The paper selects NLD as representative; a systematic scan over the other 20 parameter sets with the same coupling window would reveal whether the 1.7 km radius shift is a general feature or specific to this EOS.
  • The same coupling-tuning argument could be extended to other decuplet resonances (e.g., Σ*) to check whether similar early-appearance effects occur.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the effect of Delta-isobars on the equation of state and structure of neutron stars within the relativistic mean-field (RMF) framework. It first compares 21 RMF parameter sets against NICER and GW170817 constraints, selects NLD as a representative set, and then varies the Delta-meson couplings X_sigmaDelta, X_omegaDelta, and X_rhoDelta to study the Delta-isobar threshold density, mass-radius relation, canonical radius R1.4, and canonical tidal deformability Lambda1.4. The main claims are that Delta-isobars can appear at 2-3 times saturation density, that their threshold can lie below the Lambda0 threshold for suitable couplings, and that the canonical radius can change by about 1.7 km depending on the coupling choice.

Significance. If the quantitative claims held, the paper would strengthen the case for including Delta-isobars in neutron-star modeling and would quantify how strongly the poorly known Delta-meson couplings affect observable properties. The parametric survey over 21 RMF sets and the comparison with current NICER and GW170817 constraints are useful, and the qualitative trends (softer EOS for larger X_sigmaDelta, stiffer EOS for larger X_omegaDelta and X_rhoDelta) are physically sensible. However, the central quantitative claims rest on coupling choices that violate the paper's own stated constraint, on an unvalidated assumed potential window, and on abstract statements that do not match the body; at present the value of the paper is mainly in mapping qualitative trends rather than in establishing robust predictions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] The stated coupling constraint 0 <= X_sigmaDelta - X_rhoDelta <= 0.2 [77,17] is violated by the X_rhoDelta = 0 cases used throughout the paper. Figure 4 and the text after it consider X_sigmaDelta = 1.1 and 1.2 with X_rhoDelta = 0, for which the difference is 1.1 and 1.2, respectively. These are precisely the cases that give the lowest Delta- threshold (0.171 fm^-3 in Section 3.1), the ~1.7 km R1.4 shift, and Lambda1.4 = 566.641 inside the GW170817 window. The central "it is possible" claim therefore rests on points outside the allowed region; the manuscript must either exclude these cases or justify a revised constraint.
  2. [Abstract / Section 3.1] The abstract claims that Delta-isobars "can produce at 2-3 times the saturation density", but the body reports Delta- appearing at 0.171 fm^-3 with rho0 = 0.148 fm^-3 (about 1.16 rho0) for X_sigmaDelta = 1.1, X_rhoDelta = 0, and at 0.275 and 0.339 fm^-3 (about 1.9 and 2.3 rho0) in other cases. The stated 2-3 rho0 range is not what the calculation shows, and the conclusion should be aligned with the actual threshold values.
  3. [Abstract / Section 3] The abstract statement "For a particular value of Delta-coupling constants, the R1.4 decrease by 1.7 km" is contradicted by the body, which says that changing X_rhoDelta from 0 to 1 changes R1.4 by approximately 1.7 km, and Figure 5 shows R1.4 increasing with X_rhoDelta. The abstract must specify the baseline EOS and the direction of the change to avoid a misleading claim.
  4. [Section 3] The assumed Delta optical potential window -150 MeV <= U_Delta <= -50 MeV is adopted without validation or sensitivity analysis. The manuscript does not report the U_Delta values that result from the varied coupling choices, nor does it test how the conclusions change if the window is shifted. Since all threshold-density and radius results are controlled by this assumed input, a sensitivity study exploring the boundaries of the window is needed before the quantitative claims can be accepted.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] The sentence "none of the above parameter sets can fully align with all the constraints" is contradicted by the following sentence stating that GM1 and NLD satisfy all NICER constraints; this should be rewritten for consistency.
  2. [Figure 5] In the middle panel of Figure 5, the text says "As X_rhoDelta increases" while the panel varies X_omegaDelta; the axis label and the text do not match.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical issues, including "manuscipt" in the Abstract, "repersent" in the Figure 6 caption, "vale" in the Conclusions, and "interation" in Section 2.1; a careful language edit is needed.
  4. [Abstract / Section 3] The abstract says NLD satisfies all NICER and GW170817 constraints, but Section 3 explicitly claims only that GM1 and NLD satisfy the NICER constraints and that G3, GL97, and IFSU* best align with GW170817; the claim should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Delta-isobar threshold results are genuine parameter-space outputs; the paper's central defect is a constraint violation, which is a correctness issue, not a circular one.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is: pick an RMF parameter set, choose Delta-meson couplings subject to a U_Delta window, solve the mean-field equations and beta-equilibrium for particle fractions, then integrate the TOV equations for M-R and tidal deformability. The calculated threshold densities in Figs. 6-7 are not definitions of the input couplings; they are obtained by solving the self-consistent meson equations, so changing X_sigmaDelta, X_omegaDelta, and X_rhoDelta moves the Delta potential and hence the appearance density. The abstract's 'demonstrate that it is possible' is explicitly conditional ('by adjusting the coupling constants ... in an appropriate range'), so it is an existence statement over the scanned parameter space, not a claim that a specific fitted parameter has been 'predicted'. No parameter is fitted to reproduce the threshold-density result, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. The self-citations in the paper, Refs. [58] and [63] by co-author S.K. Biswal, are standard RMF Lagrangian and tidal-deformability formulas and are not load-bearing evidence for the central claim. The principal referee concern is a correctness defect rather than circularity: Section 3 fixes the Delta couplings by requiring '-150 MeV <= U_Delta <= -50 MeV and 0 <= X_sigmaDelta - X_rhoDelta <= 0.2', but Section 3.1 and Figs. 3-5 and 10 use X_rhoDelta = 0 with X_sigmaDelta = 1.1 or 1.2, giving X_sigmaDelta - X_rhoDelta = 1.1 or 1.2, far outside the stated 0-0.2 window; these are exactly the cases producing the early Delta- threshold (0.171 fm^-3) and the roughly 1.7 km R_1.4 change. That inconsistency undermines the advertised 'appropriate range' but does not convert the derivation into an input-output identity, because the quoted thresholds are computed consequences of the chosen couplings rather than imposed fits.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on the standard RMF Lagrangian, beta-equilibrium assumptions, and empirically motivated hyperon potentials, plus a manually chosen range for the Delta potential and coupling ratios. No new entities are introduced. The main burden is that the Delta coupling constants are free inputs scanned by the authors, so the quantitative outputs are conditional on that scan.

free parameters (3)
  • X_sigmaDelta = 1.0, 1.1, 1.2
    Delta-sigma coupling ratio scanned by hand; larger values soften the EOS and lower the Delta- threshold density.
  • X_omegaDelta = 1.0, 1.1, 1.2
    Delta-omega coupling ratio scanned by hand; larger values stiffen the EOS and raise R1.4 and Lambda1.4.
  • X_rhoDelta = 0, 1, 2
    Delta-rho coupling ratio scanned by hand; larger values stiffen the EOS, and changing it from 0 to 1 changes R1.4 by about 1.7 km for X_sigmaDelta=1.2.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The RMF Lagrangian (Eq. 1) with scalar sigma, vector omega, rho, and strange mesons describes dense baryonic matter.
    This is the founding model assumption of the paper; all EOS results follow from it (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Matter in the neutron star core is in beta equilibrium and charge neutral.
    Chemical potential relations and charge neutrality are imposed in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Hyperon couplings are fixed by SU(6) symmetry and by empirical potentials U_Lambda=-28 MeV, U_Sigma=+30 MeV, U_Xi=-18 MeV.
    Section 3 states these values with references [66-76].
  • ad hoc to paper The Delta-isobar optical potential lies between -150 and -50 MeV and 0 <= X_sigmaDelta - X_rhoDelta <= 0.2.
    Section 3: 'We chose the Delta-isobar coupling constants by ensuring that the potential U_Delta lies in the range -150 MeV <= U_Delta <= -50 MeV...' This range is the load-bearing input that mostly determines threshold densities.
  • standard math The TOV equations and Hinderer tidal formalism describe the star structure.
    Used in Sections 2.2 and 2.3; standard general-relativity results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the impact of $\Delta$-isobars on Neutron Star." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JXMBQLT5

@misc{pith2026241201201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the impact of $\Delta$-isobars on Neutron Star},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JXMBQLT5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01201}
}
abstract

We include the $\Delta$-isobars in the equation of state (EOS) of neutron star (NS) and study its effects with various parameter sets of the RMF model. We compare our results with the NS's constraints from the mass-radius measurement of PSR J0348+0432, PSR J1614-2230, PSR J0030+0451, PSR J0740+6620, PSR J0952-0607, and tidal deformability of GW170817. We calculate the mass-radius profile and tidal deformabilities of the NS using 21 parameter sets of the RMF model.Analyzing the result with various parameters, it is clear that only few parameter sets can satisfy simultaneously the constraints from NICER and GW170817. NLD parameter set satisfy all the constraints of NICER and GW170817. For its strong predictive power for the bulk properties of the neutron star, we take NLD parameter set as a representative for the detailed calculation of effect of $\Delta$-isobar on neutron star properties. We demonstrate that it is possible that $\Delta$-isobar can produce at 2-3 times the saturation density by adjusting the coupling constants $X_{\sigma\Delta}$, $X_{\rho\Delta}$ and $X_{\omega\Delta}$ in an appropriate range. Bulk properties of the NS like mass-radius profile and tidal deformability is strongly affected by the interaction strength of $\Delta$-isobar. Our calculation shows that it is also possible that by choosing $X_{\sigma\Delta}$, $X_{\rho\Delta}$ and $X_{\omega\Delta}$ to a suitable range the threshold density of $\Delta^-$-isobar become lower than $\Lambda^0$ hyperon. For a particular value of $\Delta$-coupling constants, the $R_{1.4}$ decrease by 1.7 km. This manuscipt give an argumentative justification for allowing $\Delta$-isobar degrees of freedom in the calculation of the NS properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01201 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mass-radius profile of the neutron star with various parameter sets of the RMF model. The boxes represent the constraints of NICER and GW170817. mesons m2 σ  1 + gσN κ3σ0 2mB + κ4g 2 σN σ 2 0 6m2 B  σ0 − 1 2 m2 ρηρ gσN ρ 2 03 mB − 1 2 m2 ω  η1 gσN mB + η2 g 2 σN σ0 m2 B  ω 2 0 = XgσBρ s B. (2) m2 ω  1 + η1 gσN σ0 mB + η2 2 g 2 σN σ 2 0 m2 B  ω0 + 1 6 ζ0g 2 ωN ω 3 0 = XgωBρB. (3) m2 ρ  1 + ηρ gσN σ0 mB  R0 = … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effect of the ∆–isobar on the mass-radius profile of the neutron star with the coupling constants Xσ∆ = 1.1, Xω∆ = Xρ∆ = 1. The boxes represent the constraints of NICER and GW170817. µ∆0 = µn, µ∆+ = µp, µ∆++ = µp − µn. The charge neutrality condition is satisfied as np + nΣ+ + 2n∆++ + n∆+ = ne + nµ− + nΣ− + nΞ− + n∆− Total energy E density and pressure P can be calculated from energy–momentum tensor T µν defined as … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Effect of the ∆–isobar on the mass-radius profile of the NLD parameter set with the coupling constants Xσ∆ = 1–1.2, Xω∆ = 1–1.2 and Xρ∆ = 0–2. The boxes represent the constraints of NICER and GW170817. Further, we include the ∆–isobars in our EOS to study the effect of the ∆–isobars on neutron star’s properties. Initially, it is believed that the ∆–isobars generally appear at higher density. However, further researc… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variation of canonical radius R1.4 with Xσ∆, Xρ∆ and Xω∆ − √ 2 3 gωN , XϕΞ = − 2 √ 2 3 gωN . We chose the ∆–isobars coupling constants by ensuring that the potential U∆ lies in the range -150 MeV≤ U∆ ≤ -50 MeV and the coupling constants Xσ∆ and Xρ∆ satisfy the conditio…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Baryon formation with different values of Xω∆ with Xσ∆ = 1.2 and Xρ∆ = 1 of NLD parameter set. results a stiffer EOS, which consequently increases the maximum mass. In both cases, no significant change in the canonical radius (R1.4) is observed. However, it is found th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Upper figure shows the Λ1–Λ2 plot of neutron star for various parameter sets of RMF model. The solid gray line represents the 90% credible limit while the dash gray line represents the 50% credible limit. The diagonal solid line represnt the boundary for Λ1 = Λ2. The l…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Upper figure shows the Λ1 − Λ2 plot of the neutron star for various parameter sets of the RMF model with ∆– isobars. The solid gray line represents the 90% credible limit while the dash gray line represents the 50% credible limit. The diagonal solid line represents the…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Tidal deformability Λ1.4 of canonical mass of NLD parameter set for various different value of coupling constants Xσ∆, Xρ∆ and Xω∆. Xρ∆ = 2, Λ0 appears at a lower density 0.422 fm−3 much before ∆− which appears at a density of 0.557 fm−3 . The ∆− also appear at higher…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    These celestial bodies emerge from the remnants of massive stars following type II supernova explosions

    Introduction Neutron stars are compact objects characterized by their high density, small radius, and strong gravitational pull compared to ordinary stars, first introduced by Walter Baade and Fritz Zwicky in 1934 [1, 2, 3]. These celestial bodies emerge from the remnants of massive stars following type II supernova explosions. In 1939, Oppenheimer and Vo...

    1934

  2. [2]

    Relativistic Mean Field Theory The relativistic mean field (RMF) model provides more convenient way to explore the internal structure of the NS

    Theoretical F ramework 2.1. Relativistic Mean Field Theory The relativistic mean field (RMF) model provides more convenient way to explore the internal structure of the NS. In RMF theory, nucleons are interact via exchange of mesons and photons. These interacting mesons are categorized on the basis of their spin, isospin and parity. Generally, the scalar ...

    2017

  3. [3]

    Fig.1 displays the mass- radius plot of these parameter sets with NICER and GW170817 constraints

    Result and Discussion We use 21 different parameter sets of the RMF model to investigate which parameter sets align with NICER and GW170817 constraints. Fig.1 displays the mass- radius plot of these parameter sets with NICER and GW170817 constraints. Analyzing Fig.1 we note that, among all the parameter sets none of them can completely satisfy the NICER a...

    2000

  4. [4]

    From this analysis, it is clear that there is a slight change in R1.4 due to change in Xσ∆ and Xω∆

    As Xρ∆ increases from 0 to 2, the EOS also becomes stiffer, leading to an increase in R1.4 from 12.68 km to 13.69 km. From this analysis, it is clear that there is a slight change in R1.4 due to change in Xσ∆ and Xω∆. Jena et al. 8 3.1. Effect of ∆–isobars on threshold density of hyperons In the terrestrial laboratories, hyperons are unstable and decay in...

    work page

  5. [5]

    There are large number of the RMF parameter sets, but it is not possible to study the detail calculation with all the parameter set

    Conclusions In this manuscript, we examine the influence of the ∆–isobar on the bulk properties of the neutron star, like maximum mass, canonical radius R1.4 and tidal deformability with the RMF model. There are large number of the RMF parameter sets, but it is not possible to study the detail calculation with all the parameter set. Therefore, we take NLD...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Acknowledgments S. K. Biswal acknowledges the support from the SERB, DST, Government of India, with grant no. CRG/2022/005378

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    20.5.254

    Baade W and Zwicky F 1934 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 20 254–259 ( Preprint https: //www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.20.5.254) URL https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas. 20.5.254

    doi:10.1073/pnas.20.5.254 1934

  8. [8]

    wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9783527617661.ch9

    Shapiro S L and Teukolsky S A 1983 Neutron Star Mod- els: Masses and Radii (John Wiley and Sons, Ltd) chap 9, pp 241–266 ISBN 9783527617661 ( Preprint https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ 9783527617661.ch9) URL https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9783527617661.ch9

    work page doi:10.1002/9783527617661.ch9 1983

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Glendenning N K 1997 Compact Stars : Nuclear Physics, particle Physics , and General Relativity (Spinger - Verlag, New York)

    1997

  2. [10]

    Hewish A, Bell S J, Pilkington J D H, Scott P F and Collins R A 1968 nature 217 709–713

    1968

  3. [11]

    Astron.4

    Ambartsumyan V A and Saakyan G S 1960 Sov. Astron.4

    1960

  4. [12]

    K Glendenning N 1985 Astrophys. J. 293 470–493

    1985

  5. [13]

    Glendenning N K and Moszkowski S A 1991 Phys. Rev. Lett. 67(18) 2414–2417 URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.2414

    1991 doi

  6. [14]

    Gupta N and Arumugam P 2012 Phys. Rev. C 85(1) 015804 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.85.015804

    2012

  7. [15]

    Gupta N and Arumugam P 2013 Phys. Rev. C 87(2) 028801 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.87.028801

    2013

  8. [16]

    Glendenning N K and Schaffner-Bielich J 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. 81(21) 4564–4567 URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4564

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    Glendenning N K and Schaffner-Bielich J 1999 Phys. Rev. C 60(2) 025803 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.60.025803

    1999

  10. [18]

    Christiansen M B, Glendenning N K and Schaffner-Bielich J 2000 Phys. Rev. C62(2) 025804 URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.62.025804

    2000 doi

  11. [19]

    Collins J C and Perry M J 1975 Physical Review Letters34 1353–1356

    1975

  12. [20]

    Zhou K, Xia C J and Peng G X 2018 International Journal of Modern Physics E 27 1850037 ( Preprint https: //doi.org/10.1142/S0218301318500374) URL https:// doi.org/10.1142/S0218301318500374

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Dexheimer V, Soethe L T T, Roark J, Gomes R O, Kepler S O and Schramm S 2018 International Journal of Modern Physics E 27 1830008 ( Preprint https: //doi.org/10.1142/S0218301318300084) URL https:// doi.org/10.1142/S0218301318300084

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Sch¨ urhoff T, Schramm S and Dexheimer V 2010 apjl 724 L74–L77 (Preprint 1008.0957)

    2010 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Drago A, Lavagno A, Pagliara G and Pigato D 2014 Phys. Rev. C 90(6) 065809 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.065809

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Sahoo H S, Mitra G, Mishra R, Panda P K and Li B A 2018 Phys. Rev. C 98(4) 045801 URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.98.045801

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    harvard.edu/abs/2018APS..APRC16004S

    Spinella W and Weber F 2018 URL https://ui.adsabs. harvard.edu/abs/2018APS..APRC16004S

    2018

  18. [26]

    Li J J, Sedrakian A and Weber F 2018 Physics Letters B 783 234–240 ISSN 0370-2693 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0370269318305070

    2018

  19. [27]

    Ribes P, Ramos A, Tolos L, Gonzalez-Boquera C and Centelles M 2019 The Astrophysical Journal 883 168 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a93

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Malfatti G, Orsaria M G, Contrera G A, Weber F and Ranea-Sandoval I F 2019 Phys. Rev. C 100(1) 015803 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.100.015803

    2019

  21. [29]

    Dexheimer V, Marquez K D and Menezes D P 2021 European Physical Journal A 57 216 ( Preprint 2103. 09855)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Rather I A, Marquez K D, Panotopoulos G and Lopes I 2023 Phys. Rev. D107(12) 123022 URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.123022

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Marczenko M, Redlich K and Sasaki C 2022 Phys. Rev. D 105(10) 103009 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.105.103009

    2022

  24. [32]

    Li J J and Sedrakian A 2019 apjl 874 L22 ( Preprint 1904.02006)

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Marczenko M, Redlich K and Sasaki C 2022 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 925 L23 URL https:// dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac4b61

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Marquez K D, Menezes D P, Pais H and Providˆ encia C 2022 Phys. Rev. C106 055801 (Preprint 2206.02935)

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Horowitz C J and Serot B D 1981 Nucl. Phys. A368 503 – 528 ISSN 0375-9474

    1981

  28. [36]

    Furnstahl R J, Price C E and Walker G E 1987Phys. Rev. C 36(6) 2590–2600 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.36.2590

  29. [37]

    Haddad S 1999 Europhysics Letters (EPL) 48 505–507 URL https://doi.org/10.1209

    1999

  30. [38]

    Reinhard P G 1989 Reports on Progress in Physics 52 439 URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0034-4885% 2F52%2F4%2F002 Jena et al. 11

    1989

  31. [39]

    Lalazissis G A, K¨ onig J and Ring P 1997 Phys. Rev. C 55(1) 540–543 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.55.540

    1997

  32. [40]

    com/science/article/pii/S0370269308014500

    Lalazissis G A, Karatzikos S, Fossion R, Arteaga D P, Afanasjev A V and Ring P 2009Physics Letters B671 36 – 41 ISSN 0370-2693 URL http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0370269308014500

  33. [41]

    Reinhard P G, Rufa M, Maruhn J, Greiner W and Friedrich J 1986 Z. Phys. A Atomic Nuclei323 13–25 ISSN 0939- 7922 URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01294551

    1986 doi

  34. [42]

    Rashdan M 2001 Phys. Rev. C 63(4) 044303 URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.63.044303

    2001 doi

  35. [43]

    Sharma M, Nagarajan M and Ring P 1993 Physics Letters B 312 377–381 ISSN 0370-2693 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/037026939390970S

    1993

  36. [44]

    Fattoyev F J and Piekarewicz J 2010 Phys. Rev. C 82(2) 025805 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.82.025805

    2010

  37. [45]

    Mondal C, Agrawal B K, De J N and Samaddar S K 2016 Phys. Rev. C 93(4) 044328 URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.93.044328

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    Kumar B, Patra S K and Agrawal B K 2018 Phys. Rev. C 97(4) 045806 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.97.045806

    2018

  39. [47]

    Antoniadis J, Freire P C C, Wex N, Tauris T M, Lynch R S, van Kerkwijk M H, Kramer M, Bassa C, Dhillon V S, Driebe T, Hessels J W T, Kaspi V M, Kondratiev V I, Langer N, Marsh T R, McLaughlin M A, Pennucci T T, Ransom S M, Stairs I H, van Leeuwen J, Verbiest J P W and Whelan D...

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    Arzoumanian Z, Brazier A, Burke-Spolaor S, Chamberlin S, Chatterjee S, Christy B, Cordes J M, Cornish N J, Crawford F, Cromartie H T, Crowter K, DeCesar M E, Demorest P B, Dolch T, Ellis J A, Ferdman R D, Ferrara E C, Fonseca E, Garver-Daniels N, Gentile P A, Halmrast D, Huert...

    2018

  41. [49]

    Riley T E, Watts A L, Bogdanov S, Ray P S, Ludlam R M, Guillot S, Arzoumanian Z, Baker C L, Bilous A V, Chakrabarty D, Gendreau K C, Harding A K, Ho W C G, Lattimer J M, Morsink S M and Strohmayer T E 2019 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 887 L21 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.384...

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    3847/2041-8213/ac0a81

    Riley T E, Watts A L, Ray P S, Bogdanov S, Guillot S, Morsink S M, Bilous A V, Arzoumanian Z, Choudhury D, Deneva J S, Gendreau K C, Harding A K, Ho W C G, Lattimer J M, Loewenstein M, Ludlam R M, Markwardt C B, Okajima T, Prescod-Weinstein C, Remillard R A, Wolff M T, Fonseca...

    2021

  43. [51]

    Romani R W, Kandel D, Filippenko A V, Brink T G and Zheng W 2022 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 934 L17 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/ 2041-8213/ac8007

    2022

  44. [52]

    (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 2017 Phys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 119(16) 161101 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    2017

  45. [53]

    (The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration) 2018 Phys

    Abbott B P et al. (The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration) 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 121(16) 161101 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101

    2018

  46. [54]

    Cavagnoli R and Menezes D P 2008 J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 35 115202 URL http://stacks.iop.org/ 0954-3899/35/i=11/a=115202

    2008

  47. [55]

    Bhowmick B, Bhattacharya M, Bhattacharyya A and Gangopadhyay G 2014 Phys. Rev. C 89(6) 065806 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC. 89.065806

    2014 doi

  48. [56]

    Bednarek I, Keska M and Manka R 2003 Phys. Rev. C 68(3) 035805 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.68.035805

    2003

  49. [57]

    Pal S, Hanauske M, Zakout I, St¨ ocker H and Greiner W 1999 Phys. Rev. C 60(1) 015802 URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.60.015802

    1999 doi

  50. [58]

    Bunta J K and Gmuca S 2004 Phys. Rev. C 70(5) 054309 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.70.054309

    2004

  51. [59]

    Schaffner J and Mishustin I N 1996 Phys. Rev. C 53(3) 1416–1429 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.53.1416

    1996

  52. [60]

    Zhao X F 2015 Phys. Rev. C 92(5) 055802 URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.92.055802

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    Miller L D and Green A E S 1972 Phys. Rev. C5(1) 241–252 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.5. 241

    1972 doi

  54. [62]

    Ma´ nka R, Bednarek I and Przyby la G 2000 Phys. Rev. C 62(1) 015802 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.62.015802

    2000

  55. [64]

    Biswal S K, Patra S K and Zhou S G 2019The Astrophysical Journal 885 25 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/ab43c5

  56. [65]

    Tolman R C 1939 Phys. Rev. 55(4) 364–373 URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.55.364

    1939 doi

  57. [66]

    Oppenheimer J R and Volkoff G M 1939 Phys. Rev. 55(4) 374–381 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRev.55.374

    1939

  58. [67]

    Hinderer T 2008 The Astrophysical Journal677 1216 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/533487

    2008 doi

  59. [68]

    Hinderer T, Lackey B D, Lang R N and Read J S 2010 Phys. Rev. D81(12) 123016

    2010

  60. [69]

    Kumar B, Biswal S K and Patra S K 2017 Phys. Rev. C 95(1) 015801 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.95.015801

    2017

  61. [70]

    Malik T, Alam N, Fortin M, Providˆ encia C, Agrawal B K, Jha T K, Kumar B and Patra S K 2018 Phys. Rev. C 98(3) 035804 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.98.035804

    2018

  62. [71]

    3847/2041-8213/aabcbf

    Raithel C, ¨Ozel F and Psaltis D 2018 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 857 L23 URL https://dx.doi.org/10. 3847/2041-8213/aabcbf

    2018

  63. [72]

    Batty C, Friedman E and Gal A 1997 Phys. Rep. 287 385 – 445 ISSN 0370-1573 URL http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0370157397000112

    1997

  64. [73]

    Millener D J, Dover C B and Gal A 1988 Phys. Rev. C 38(6) 2700–2708 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.38.2700

    1988

  65. [74]

    Torres J R, Gulminelli F and Menezes D P 2017 Phys. Rev. C 95(2) 025201 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.025201 Jena et al. 12

    2017 doi

  66. [75]

    org/10.1088%2F1475-7516%2F2018%2F05%2F038

    Lopes L and Menezes D 2018 Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018 038–038 URL https://doi. org/10.1088%2F1475-7516%2F2018%2F05%2F038

    2018

  67. [76]

    Kohno M, Fujiwara Y, Watanabe Y, Ogata K and Kawai M 2006 Phys. Rev. C74(6) 064613 URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.064613

    2006 doi

  68. [77]

    Harada T and Hirabayashi Y 2005 Nucl. Phys. A759 143 – 169 ISSN 0375-9474 URL http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0375947405006123

    2005

  69. [78]

    Harada T and Hirabayashi Y 2006 Nucl. Phys. A767 206 – 217 ISSN 0375-9474 URL http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0375947406000029

    2006

  70. [79]

    Friedman E and Gal A 2007 Phys. Rep. 452 89 – 153 ISSN 0370-1573 URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0370157307003353

    2007

  71. [80]

    Schaffner-Bielich J and Gal A 2000 Phys. Rev. C 62(3) 034311 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.62.034311

    2000

  72. [81]

    Dover C and Gal A 1984 Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.12 171 – 239 ISSN 0146-6410 URL http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/0146641084900048

    1984

  73. [82]

    Schaffner J, Dover C, Gal A, Greiner C, Millener D and Stocker H 1994 Ann. Phys. 235 35 – 76 ISSN 0003-4916 URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0003491684710906

    1994

  74. [83]

    Wehrberger K, Bedau C and Beck F 1989 Nuclear Physics A 504 797–817 ISSN 0375-9474 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0375947489900080

    1989

  75. [84]

    Cai B J, Fattoyev F J, Li B A and Newton W G 2015 Phys. Rev. C 92(1) 015802 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.015802

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.