REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 122 references
Tidal deformability and compactness of neutron stars and massive pulsars from semi-microscopic equations of state
T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read A compact family of neutron-star equations of state passes tidal and radius tests.
desk verdict Solid CDM3Y tidal-deformability scan, but the headline 'narrower ranges' claim needs a defined statistical basis before it can be believed. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The engine of the calculation is the CDM3Y density-dependent form of the finite-range M3Y nucleon-nucleon interaction, parameterized to give equations of state with saturation incompressibility 200–330 MeV. These equations of state feed the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff structure equations together with the differential equation for the tidal Love number $y(r)$, whose surface value $y_R$ enters the compactness-dependent formula for $k_2$ and hence for the dimensionless tidal deformability $\Lambda = 2k_2/(3C^5)$. The equation-of-state-independent claim is carried by a linear fit to $\ln\Lambda$ versus compactness for $M \ge M_\odot$, Eq. (22), which collapses the ten CDM3Y-Paris and CDM3Y-Reid curves onto one line.
What would settle it
A secure measurement of the 1.4-solar-mass radius outside roughly 11.4–12.8 km, or of its tidal deformability outside roughly 200–430, would contradict the paper's central consistency claim; a confirmed neutron star above about 2.4 solar masses would exceed the maximum masses that the $K_0 = 230\text{–}330$ MeV family allows.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that the CDM3Y-Paris and CDM3Y-Reid equations of state with saturation incompressibility $230 \le K_0 \le 330$ MeV reproduce the tidal deformability estimates from GW170817 and GW190425 and the X-ray pulse-profile radius constraints for massive pulsars, while producing a narrower band of radius and deformability than observation alone allows. The paper derives the relation $\ln(\Lambda) = 11.327 - 32.8\, C$, with coefficient of determination $R^2 = 0.992$, for neutron stars with $M \ge M_\odot$, and interprets it as independent of the details of the equation of state. It further shows that for stars below one solar mass the tidal deformability is largely insensitive to the stiffness of the core, whereas above one solar mass stiffer matter enhances deformation because it lowers compactness while raising the tidal Love number.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that neutron star cores contain only ordinary hadronic matter (protons, neutrons, electrons, and muons) in beta equilibrium, with no phase transition to quark or hyperon matter; if such a transition happens inside a real star, agreement with observed tidal constraints would not by itself validate the equation of state.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- The 230–330 MeV incompressibility window becomes a sharp prediction: radii of canonical neutron stars lie near 11.4–12.8 km, tighter than current empirical ranges.
- The linear $\ln\Lambda$–$C$ relation gives a simple way to convert a compactness measurement into a tidal deformability prediction for any star heavier than one solar mass.
- Stiffer equations of state produce larger radii and larger tidal deformabilities for massive neutron stars, so a future precise measurement of either quantity would discriminate among the family members.
- The paper's maximum masses (about 2.1 solar masses for these EOSs) imply that any confirmed neutron star above roughly 2.4 solar masses would fall outside this hadronic family.
- The results support the lower end of the inferred tidal-deformability constraints for the heavier merger components and the upper end for lighter components.
Reading between the lines
- Editorial extension: if the $\ln\Lambda$–$C$ relation holds beyond the CDM3Y family, a single precise radius or compactness measurement could be used to predict the deformability seen in the next binary neutron-star inspiral, sharpening the interpretation of gravitational-wave data.
- Editorial extension: the paper's restriction to hadronic npe$\mu$ cores sets up a testable extension—repeat the calculation with a quark or hyperon phase added; a hybrid-star branch that still fits GW170817 would show whether the 230–330 MeV band is genuinely preferred or merely one hadronic realization.
- Editorial extension: the same machinery could be applied to the moment of inertia, which the paper mentions but does not correlate in the same equation-of-state-independent way, potentially yielding another compactness-based relation testable by pulsar timing.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript studies the tidal deformability and compactness of neutron stars using the CDM3Y-Paris and CDM3Y-Reid equations of state with saturation incompressibility K0 between 200 and 330 MeV. The authors solve the TOV equations together with the tidal Love-number differential equation for beta-equilibrated npeμ matter with a unified crust, compare their predictions for radius and dimensionless tidal deformability against GW170817, GW190425, and NICER pulsar constraints, and conclude that the K0 = 230–330 MeV subset yields narrower ranges of radius and tidal deformability than the experimentally inferred ranges. They also examine the mass dependence of the compactness and the tidal Love number, and propose a linear relation, ln Lambda = 11.327 - 32.8 C (Eq. 22), for neutron stars with M >= M_sun, fitted to ten CDM3Y models. The paper is a standard application of well-established machinery to a specific family of finite-range interactions.
Significance. If the narrowing claim were rigorously established, the paper would provide a useful constraint on the CDM3Y interaction family and on the nuclear incompressibility from astrophysical data. The tabulated predictions for the GW170817 and GW190425 components, the comparison with NICER constraints, and the comparison with recent Skyrme and RMF calculations are informative reference material. The numerical scheme is standard and the manuscript is honest about the model dependence of its EOS. However, the central narrowing claim is not yet well defined, the proposed universal relation is tested only within one model family, and there is an internal inconsistency in the light-neutron-star behavior. These issues are fixable and the underlying calculations appear sound, so the paper is a reasonable candidate for revision rather than rejection.
major comments (4)
- [Table I and Sec. III] The headline claim that the CDM3Y-230 to CDM3Y-330 EOSs give 'more limited ranges of tidal deformability and radius ... than their experimentally inferred ranges' is not backed by a defined statistical comparison. In Table I, the quoted uncertainties for the present calculations appear to mix two distinct sources: the spread over K0 at fixed mass and the spread induced by the component-mass posterior, while the experimental entries are 90% credible intervals that already marginalize over mass and waveform systematics. On the data as presented, the claim is false for at least one row: for GW190425 m2 the experimental Lambda interval is 60-1433 (521 +912/-461), whereas the Paris CDM3Y result is 978 ± 649, i.e. 329-1627, which extends beyond the observed interval; the Reid result, 47-1453, has essentially the same width as the observed interval. The authors should define the 'range' precisely (envelope over K0, central 90% interval, or union over objects), separate the K0 and mass-posterior contributions, and recompute the comparison for every object. The claim may survive for the 1.4 M_sun row, where the CDM3Y intervals are indeed narrower, but it cannot be stated as a general result based on the current table.
- [Sec. III, K0-band selection] The narrowing claim depends on a post-hoc selection of the K0 = 230-330 MeV subset. The paper includes K0 = 200 MeV in the figures but states that 'only the soft EOS (K0 = 200 MeV) fails to reproduce the indicated Lambda for the NS objects of masses larger than 1.36 M_sun' and that its maximum mass does not exceed 1.4-1.5 M_sun. Excluding an EOS because it fails the very constraints that are later used to claim agreement makes the resulting 'narrower ranges' partly a consequence of the selection, not an independent prediction. The authors should report the full K0 = 200-330 MeV envelope and provide an explicit statement of whether the narrowing claim is meant as an in-sample description of the selected EOSs or as an out-of-sample prediction. In its present form, the central quantitative result is ambiguous and partially circular.
- [Eq. (22) and Fig. 3(d)] The claim that Eq. (22), ln(Lambda) = 11.327 - 32.8 C with R^2 = 0.992, provides a 'unified description ... independent of the details of the employed EOS' is not supported by the evidence presented. The fit uses ten EOSs from a single family (CDM3Y-Paris and CDM3Y-Reid with K0 = 230-330 MeV), all based on the same functional form, the same npeμ composition, and the same assumption of no phase transitions. R^2 is an in-sample goodness-of-fit measure, not a test of universality across independent EOS families. Moreover, Fig. 3(d) itself shows that the various universal relations differ by up to 40% at C = 0.12 and about 24% at C = 0.27, with the present relation deviating from its own linear fit by 32% at C = 0.12. The authors should test Eq. (22) against at least a few independent EOS families and report the residuals and mass range of validity before calling it EOS-independent.
- [Abstract and Sec. III] There is an internal inconsistency concerning the behavior of light neutron stars. The abstract states: 'For light NS (M < M_sun), both k2 and C decreases upon decreasing the NS mass, which enhances its tidal deformability.' In Sec. III, however, the authors report that upon decreasing the NS mass from 0.6 to 0.2 M_sun, the compactness increases from about 0.02 to 0.074 and the tidal Love number increases from about 0.02 to 0.082, and that these increasing rates strongly decrease the tidal deformability by about two orders of magnitude. These two statements cannot both be correct. Since Eq. (11) shows Lambda = (2/3) k2 / C^5, an increase in C with decreasing mass would dominate and reduce Lambda, not enhance it. The abstract and the discussion in Sec. III must be reconciled, and the direction of the effect should be stated correctly with the mass range clearly specified.
minor comments (5)
- [Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains the duplicated phrase 'MeV MeV'; this should be corrected to 'MeV'.
- [Fig. 1 labels] Several labels in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 appear as corrupted text, e.g., 'npe/s109 NS matter'; these should be replaced with the intended notation, such as 'npeμ NS matter'.
- [References] Several references use 'el al.' instead of 'et al.' (e.g., Refs. [83], [85]-[90], [110]); these should be corrected for consistency.
- [Sec. III, crust EOS attribution] The text attributes the inner-crust EOS to 'Douchen et al.' but the cited Ref. [79] is by Douchin and Haensel; the name should be spelled consistently with the reference list.
- [Sec. II, Eq. (20)] The positivity condition for the core-crust transition is stated as K_mu_i > 0, but the text refers to 'the positivity condition of compressibility'; it would be clearer to state that the thermodynamic stability condition requires the appropriate incompressibility to be positive.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the EOS inputs are independent of tidal data, validation uses external constraints, and Eq. (22) is an acknowledged fit to model output rather than a prediction.
full rationale
The derivation chain is self-contained. The CDM3Y-Paris and CDM3Y-Reid EOS parameters were fixed in prior work from nuclear-matter equilibrium properties, Brueckner-Hartree-Fock isovector potentials, and nuclear-structure/reaction data, not from neutron-star tidal deformability. The present paper then solves the TOV equations and the tidal Love-number differential equation independently and compares the resulting radii and deformabilities with external GW170817, GW190425, and NICER inferences. The K0 = 230-330 MeV subset is not fitted to tidal data; it emerges as the pre-existing set of EOSs that support massive neutron stars and match earlier mass-radius constraints, and the paper explicitly reports that K0 = 200 MeV fails. Equation (22), ln(Lambda) = 11.327 - 32.8 C, is an empirical least-squares fit to the authors' own computed (Lambda, C) points and is explicitly labeled a fit with R^2 = 0.992; it is not claimed as an ab initio prediction, and the paper acknowledges that such relations retain model dependence and cites prior similar universal-relation studies. The self-citations to Refs. [23,53,54] supply EOS parameters and earlier mass-radius checks, but those inputs are grounded in independent nuclear-physics data and external astrophysical observations, so they do not make the central consistency claim circular. The 'narrower ranges' statement is a statistical-comparison concern about how model spread is defined and mixed with mass-posterior and K0 variations, but it is not a case where a prediction is equivalent to an input by construction.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (4)
- CDM3Y density-dependence parameters (C_i, alpha_i, beta_i, gamma_i for isoscalar and isovector channels) =
not tabulated in this paper; from Refs. [23,53]
- Saturation incompressibility grid K0 =
200, 230, 240, 270, 300, 330 MeV
- Linear universal relation coefficients =
11.327 and -32.8 in ln(Lambda) = 11.327 - 32.8 C
- Lambda_1.4 - R_1.4 power-law coefficients =
Paris: 5.74e-6, exponent 7.16; Reid: 1.24e-6, exponent 7.80
assumptions (6)
- standard math General relativity, specifically the TOV equations, governs hydrostatic equilibrium of non-rotating neutron stars.
- standard math The tidal Love number k2 satisfies the first-order ODE of Eqs. (5)-(8) for a static, spherically symmetric star.
- domain assumption Neutron star core matter is uniform beta-equilibrated npe-mu matter with no phase transitions.
- domain assumption The CDM3Y density-dependent parameters fitted in Refs. [23,53] accurately describe symmetric and asymmetric nuclear matter up to the densities reached in neutron star cores.
- domain assumption The Haensel-Zdunik outer crust and Douchin inner crust EOSs describe the crust region.
- standard math Causality, vs <= c, holds in dense matter.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Tidal deformability and compactness of neutron stars and massive pulsars from semi-microscopic equations of state." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O7PORNA4
@misc{pith2026250711379,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Tidal deformability and compactness of neutron stars and massive pulsars from semi-microscopic equations of state},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O7PORNA4}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11379}
}
abstract
Tidal deformability measures how NS can comfortably deform as a response to an applied tidal field. We use updated constraints on the mass, radius, and tidal deformability of neutron star (NS) objects and pulsars to examine nuclear equations of state (EOS) based on realistic finite-range M3Y nucleon-nucleon interaction, which have been successfully used to describe low- and high-dense nuclear matter (NM). We then employ these EOSs to examine the impact of tidal deformability and compactness of NSs on their structure. We found that the EOSs from CDM3Y-230 to CDM3Y-330 characterized with the saturation incompressibility ${K}_{0}=230-330$ MeV together yield more limited ranges of tidal deformability and radius for NS objects than their experimentally inferred ranges. For light NS ($M<\text{M}_{\odot}$), both ${k}_{2}$ and $\mathcal{C}$ decreases upon decreasing the NS mass, which enhances its tidal deformability. The stiffness of the NS core matter has shown a minor effect on the tidal deformability of such NS ($M<\text{M}_{\odot}$). An opposite behavior is obtained as an increase in the tidal Love number but a decrease in the more effective compactness of NS ($M>\text{M}_{\odot}$), upon increasing (decreasing) the stiffness of the employed EOS (its mass). This appears as enhanced tidal deformability indicated at a larger radius for NS of stiffer NM and for the lighter NS above $\text{M}_{\odot}$. Unified description of some correlations between tidal deformability, tidal Love number, and NS compactness is provided independent of the details of the considered EOS.
Figures
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Haensel, A
P. Haensel, A. Y. Potekhin, and D. G. Yakovlev, Neutron Stars 1, Springer-Verlag, New York (2007)
2007
-
[2]
based on CDM3Y-Paris ( K0 = 217− 257 MeV) and BDM3Y (270 MeV) EOSs, and generalizes it across wider spectrum of K0, from extremely soft to extremely stiff limits. This behavior is further influenced by reducing the negative contributions of the higher-order isovector coefficient of the incompressibility ( K2), the isoscalar skewness (Q0), and the kurtosis...
-
[3]
N. H. Tan, D. T. Khoa, and D. T. Loan, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 153 (2021)
2021
-
[4]
J. H. Taylor and J. M. Weisberg, Astrophys. J. 253, 908 (1982)
1982
-
[5]
Cutter, T
C. Cutter, T. A. Apostolatos, L. Bildsten, L. S. Finn, E. E. Flanagan, D. Kennefick, D. M. Markovic, A. Ori, E. Poisson, G. J. Sussman, and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2984 (1993)
1993
-
[6]
Malik, N
T. Malik, N. Alam, M. Fortin, C. Providncia, B. K. Agrawal, T. K. Jha, B. Kumar, and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. C 98, 035804 (2018)
2018
-
[7]
Faber, Classical Quantum Gravity 26, 114004 (2009)
J. Faber, Classical Quantum Gravity 26, 114004 (2009). 10
2009
-
[8]
M. D. Duez, Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 114000 (2010)
2010
Show all 122 references
-
[9]
B. P. Abbott et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018)
2018
-
[10]
Piekarewicz and F
J. Piekarewicz and F. J. Fattoyev, Phys. Rev. C 99, 045802 (2019)
2019
-
[11]
Annala, T
E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 172703 (2018)
2018
-
[12]
F. J. Fattoyev, J. Piekarewicz, and C. J. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 172702 (2018)
2018
-
[13]
Binnington and E
T. Binnington and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084018 (2009)
2009
-
[14]
Damour, A
T. Damour, A. Nagar, and L. Villain, Phys. Rev. D85, 123007 (2012)
2012
-
[15]
Hinderer, B
T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang and J. S. Read, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123016 (2010)
2010
-
[16]
Hinderer, Astrophys
T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J. 677, 1216 (2008)
2008
-
[17]
B. P. Abbott et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)
2016
-
[18]
B. P. Abbott et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)
2017
-
[19]
Goldstein et al ., Astrophys
A. Goldstein et al ., Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L14 (2017)
2017
-
[20]
Savchenko et al ., Astrophys
V. Savchenko et al ., Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L15 (2017)
2017
-
[21]
Postnikov, M
S. Postnikov, M. Prakash and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D 82, 024016 (2010)
2010
-
[22]
C. C. Moustakidis, T. Gaitanos, C. Margaritis and G. A. Lalazissis, Phys. Rev. C 95, 045801 (2017)
2017
-
[23]
Kumar, S
B. Kumar, S. K. Biswal and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. C 95, 015801 (2017)
2017
-
[24]
W. M. Seif, A. S. Hashem, and H. A. Abualhamd, J. Phys. G 51, 065203 (2024)
2024
-
[25]
Damour and A
T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084035 (2009)
2009
-
[26]
E. E. Flanagan and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D 77, 021502 (2008)
2008
-
[27]
B. D. Lackey, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, P. R. Brady, and J. L. Friedman, Phys. Rev. D 89, 043009 (2014)
2014
-
[28]
J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rep. 442, 109 (2007)
2007
-
[29]
Kubis, Phys
S. Kubis, Phys. Rev. C 76, 025801 (2007)
2007
-
[30]
Worley, P
A. Worley, P. G. Krastev and B. A. Li, Astrophys. J. 685, 390 (2008)
2008
-
[31]
W. M. Seif, A. S. Hashem, and Youstina Ramsis, Phys. Rev. C 106, 015801 (2022)
2022
-
[32]
Atta and D
D. Atta and D. N. Basu, Phys. Rev. C 90, 035802 (2014)
2014
-
[33]
J. M. Lattimer and B. F. Schutz, Astrophys. J. 629, 979 (2005)
2005
-
[34]
Douchin and P
F. Douchin and P. Haensel, Astron. Astrophys. 380, 151 (2001)
2001
-
[35]
E. R. Most, L. R. Weih, L. Rezzolla and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 261103 (2018)
2018
-
[36]
Lim and J
Y. Lim and J. W. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 062701 (2018)
2018
-
[37]
P. G. Krastev and B. A. Li, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 46, 074001(2019)
2019
-
[38]
¨Ozel and P
F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 54, 401 (2016)
2016
-
[39]
Arzoumanian et al ., Astrophys
Z. Arzoumanian et al ., Astrophys. J 235, 37 (2018)
2018
-
[40]
B. P. Abbott et al . (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X 9, 011001 (2019)
2019
-
[41]
A. W. Steiner, S. Gandolfi, F. J. Fattoyev, and W. G. Newton, Phys. Rev. C 91, 015804 (2015)
2015
-
[42]
D. T. Khoa, D. T. Loan, and N. H. Phuc, Phys. Rev. C 110, 024607 (2024)
2024
-
[43]
D. T. Loan, B. M. Loc, and D. T. Khoa, Phys. Rev. C 92, 034304 (2015)
2015
-
[44]
W. M. Seif, A. M. H. Abdelhady, and A. Adel, Phys. Rev. C 101, 064305 (2020)
2020
-
[45]
Ni and Z
D. Ni and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C 83, 014310 (2011)
2011
-
[46]
W. M. Seif and A. Adel, Phys. Rev. C 99, 044311 (2019)
2019
-
[47]
Furumoto, Y
T. Furumoto, Y. Sakuragi, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. C 80, 044614 (2009)
2009
-
[48]
W. M. Seif, Eur. Phys. J. A 38, 85 (2008)
2008
-
[49]
O. N. Ghodsi, M. Mahmoodi, and J. Ariai, Phys. Rev. C 75, 034605 (2007)
2007
-
[50]
L. H. Chien, D. T. Khoa, D. C. Cuong, and N. H. Phuc, Phys. Rev. C 98, 064604 (2018)
2018
-
[51]
W. M. Seif, A. M. H. Abdelhady, and A. Adel, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 45, 115101 (2018)
2018
-
[52]
D. T. Khoa, N. H. Phuc, D. T. Loan, and B. M. Loc, Phys. Rev. C 94, 034612 (2016)
2016
-
[53]
W. M. Seif, Nucl. Phys. A 878, 14 (2012)
2012
-
[54]
W. M. Seif and A. S. Hashem, Nucl. Phys. A 1035, 122668 (2023)
2023
-
[55]
W. M. Seif, J. Phys. G 38, 035102 (2011)
2011
-
[56]
D. T. Khoa, W. Von Oertzen, and A. A. Ogloblin, Nucl. Phys. A 602, 98 (1996)
1996
-
[57]
W. M. Seif, A. S. Hashem, R. N. Hassanien, Nucl. Phys. A 1008, 122142 (2021)
2021
-
[58]
D. T. Loan, N. H. Tan, D. T. Khoa, and J. Margueron, Phys. Rev. C 83, 065809 (2011)
2011
-
[59]
W. M. Seif and D. N. Basu, Phys. Rev. C 89, 028801 (2014)
2014
-
[60]
Mukhopadhyay, J
S. Mukhopadhyay, J. Lahiri, D. Atta, K. Imam, and D. N. Basu, Phys. Rev. C 97, 065804 (2018)
2018
-
[61]
Sabatucci and O
A. Sabatucci and O. Benhar, Phys. Rev. C 101, 045807 (2020)
2020
-
[62]
K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D 58, 124031 (1998)
1998
-
[63]
A. K. Pegios, P. S. Koliogiannis, and C. C. Moustakidis, Phys. Lett. B 832, 137267 (2022)
2022
-
[64]
N. K. Glendenning, Compact Stars: Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics, and General Relativity (Springer, Berlin, 2000)
2000
-
[65]
P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. Roberts and J. W. T. Hessels, Nature 467, 1081 (2010)
2010
-
[66]
Baldo and L
M. Baldo and L. S. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. C 59, 682 (1999)
1999
-
[67]
A. K. Pegios, P. S. Koliogiannis, and C. C. Moustakidis, Phys. Rev. C 102, 055801 (2020)
2020
-
[68]
J. Xu, L. W. Chen, B. A. Li and H. R. Ma, Astrophys. J. 697, 1549 (2009)
2009
-
[69]
D. T. Khoa, G. R. Satchler, W. Von Oertzen, Phys. Rev. C 56, 954 (1997)
1997
-
[70]
Anantaraman, H
N. Anantaraman, H. Toki, G.F. Bertsch, Nucl. Phys. A 398, 269 (1983)
1983
-
[71]
Bertsch, J
G. Bertsch, J. Borysowicz, H. McManus, W. G. Love, Nucl. Phys. A 284, 399 (1977). 11
1977
-
[72]
G. R. Satchler, W. G. Love, Phys. Rep. 55, 183 (1979)
1979
-
[73]
D. T. Khoa, H. S. Than, and D. C. Cuong, Phys. Rev. C 76, 014603 (2007)
2007
-
[74]
J. P. Jeukenne, A. Lejeune and C. Mahaux, Phys. Rev. C 16, 80 (1977)
1977
-
[75]
Lejeune, Phys
A. Lejeune, Phys. Rev. C 21, 1107 (1980)
1980
-
[76]
R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55, 364 (1939)
1939
-
[77]
J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. 55, 374 (1939)
1939
-
[78]
Haensel and J
P. Haensel and J. L. Zdunik, Nature 340, 617 (1989)
1989
-
[79]
P Feynman, N
R. P Feynman, N. Metropolis and E. Teller, Phys. Rev. 75, 1561 (1949)
1949
-
[80]
Douchin, P
F. Douchin, P. Haensel, and J. Myer, Nucl. Phys. A 665, 419 (2000)
2000
-
[81]
A. S. Hashem, R. N. Hassanien, and W. M. Seif, Phys. Scr. 99, 115306 (2024)
2024
-
[82]
B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese et al . (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collabo- ration), Astrophys. J. Lett. 892, L3 (2020)
2020
-
[83]
Landry, R
P. Landry, R. Essick, and K. Chatziioannou, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123007 (2020)
2020
-
[84]
Riley el al ., Astrophys
Thomas E. Riley el al ., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L27 (2021)
2021
-
[85]
S. M. A. Imam, T. Malik, C. Providˆ encia , and B. K. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103025 (2024)
2024
-
[86]
Salmi el al ., Astr
T. Salmi el al ., Astr. J. 976, 58 (2024)
2024
-
[87]
Choudhury el al ., Astr
D. Choudhury el al ., Astr. J. Lett. 971,L20 (2024)
2024
-
[88]
Salmi el al ., Astr
T. Salmi el al ., Astr. J 974, 294 (2024)
2024
-
[89]
Vinciguerra el al ., Astr
S. Vinciguerra el al ., Astr. J 961, 62 (2024)
2024
-
[90]
M. C. Miller el al ., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L28 (2021)
2021
-
[91]
M. C. Miller el al ., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L24 (2019)
2019
-
[92]
W. M. Seif, A. S. Hashem, and H. A. Abualhamd, Phys. Rev. C 111, 035806 (2025)
2025
-
[93]
Danielewicz, R
P. Danielewicz, R. Lacey, and W. G. Lynch, Science 298, 1592 (2002)
2002
-
[94]
J. Xu, Z. Zhang, and B. A. Li, Phys. Rev. C 104, 054324 (2021)
2021
-
[95]
Garg and G
U. Garg and G. Col` o, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 101, 55 (2018)
2018
-
[96]
W. M. Seif, Phys. Rev. C 74, 034302 (2006)
2006
-
[97]
W. M. Seif and A. M. H. Abdelhady, Chin. Phys. C 44, 074105 (2020)
2020
-
[98]
Pagliara and J
G. Pagliara and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 77, 063004 (2008)
2008
-
[99]
M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. I. Rajagopal, and T. Sch¨ afer, Rev. Mod. Phys., 80, 1455 (2008)
2008
-
[100]
J. L. Zdunik and P. Haensel, A&A 551, A61 (2013)
2013
-
[101]
Fortin, J
M. Fortin, J. L. Zdunik, P. Haensel, and M. Bejger, A&A 576, A68 (2015)
2015
-
[102]
Fortin, S
M. Fortin, S. S. Avancini, C. Providˆ encia, and I. Vida˜ na, Phys. Rev. C 95, 065803 (2017)
2017
-
[103]
Rutherford et al ., Astr
N. Rutherford et al ., Astr. J. Lett. 971, L19 (2024)
2024
-
[104]
Keller, K
J. Keller, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett., 130, 072701 (2023)
2023
-
[105]
J. R. Stone, N. J. Stone, and S. A. Moszkowski, Phys. Rev. C89, 044316 (2014)
2014
-
[106]
Stoitsov, P
M. Stoitsov, P. Ring, and M. M. Sharma, Phys. Rev. C 50, 1445 (1994)
1994
-
[107]
A. W. Steiner, J. M. Lattimer , and E. F. Brown, Astrophys. J 722, 33 (2010)
2010
-
[108]
N. Alam, S. Pal, A. Rahmansyah, and A. Sulaksono Phys. Rev. D 109, 083007 (2024)
2024
-
[109]
J. J. Li, A. Sedrakian, and F. Weber, Phys. Rev.C 108, 025810 (2023)
2023
-
[110]
Abbott et al ., (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration), Astrophys
R. Abbott et al ., (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L44 (2020)
2020
-
[111]
Riley el al ., Astrophys
Thomas E. Riley el al ., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L21 (2019)
2019
-
[112]
L. G. T. dos Santos, T. Malik, and C. Providˆ encia, arXiv:2412.04946 (2024)
2024 arXiv
-
[113]
Thakur, R
V. Thakur, R. Kumar, P. Kumar, V. Kumar, M. Kumar, C. Mondal, B. K. Agrawal, and S. K. Dhiman, Phys. Rev. C 106, 045806 (2022)
2022
-
[114]
Kumar, M
R. Kumar, M. Kumar , V. Thakur, S. Kumar, P. Kumar, A. Sharma, B. K. Agrawal, and S. K. Dhiman, Phys. Rev. C 107, 055805 (2023)
2023
-
[115]
Malik, H
T. Malik, H. Pais, and C. Providˆ encia, A&A, 689, A242 (2024)
2024
-
[116]
J. J. Li, Y. Tian, and A. Sedrakian, arXiv:2412.16513 (2024)
2024 arXiv
-
[117]
Thakur, R
V. Thakur, R. Kumar, P. Kumar, V. Kumar, B. K. Agrawal, and S. K. Dhiman, Phys. Rev. C 106, 025803 (2022)
2022
-
[118]
Huang, H
K. Huang, H. Shen, and J. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043036 (2024)
2024
-
[119]
A. R. Raduta, M. Oertel, and A. Sedrakian, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499, 914 (2020)
2020
-
[120]
Yagi and N
K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Phys. Rep. 681, 1 (2017)
2017
-
[121]
Maselli, V
A. Maselli, V. Cardoso, V. Ferrari, L. Gualtieri, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 88, 023007 (2013)
2013
-
[122]
Koehn, T
H. Koehn, T. Wouters, H. Rose, P. T. H. Pang, R. Somasundaram, I. Tews, and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103015 (2024). 12 TABLE I. Radius ( R (km)) and tidal deformability ( Λ) based on the CDM3Y-Paris and Reid EOSs of 230 MeV ≤ K0 (SNM)≤ 330 MeV, for the primary (m1) and s...
2024
Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.