pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.01325 · v3 · pith:QDUNSDQZnew · submitted 2025-11-03 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.HE

U-spin symmetry energy and hyperon puzzle

Hao-Song You , Ting-Lan Yu , Sophia Han , Cheng-Jun Xia , Ren-Xin Xu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 20:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.HE
keywords U-spin symmetry energyhyperon puzzleLambda hyperonsneutron starequation of stateBayesian inferenceSU(3) flavor symmetrydense matter
0
0 comments X

The pith

The U-spin symmetry energy is much smaller than the nuclear symmetry energy, making the Lambda hyperon potential repulsive at high densities.

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

This paper proposes a U-spin symmetry energy for hyperonic matter, analogous to the nuclear symmetry energy but for variations with hyperon inclusion. Using Bayesian inference constrained by nuclear physics and astrophysical observations, the authors find that this U-spin energy is considerably smaller than the isospin symmetry energy. This difference suggests much stronger attractions between protons and neutrons compared to those involving hyperons. As a consequence, the effective potential for Lambda hyperons grows with density and turns repulsive at sufficiently high densities. Sympathetic readers would care because this finding helps resolve aspects of the hyperon puzzle by indicating when and whether hyperons can stably exist in the dense interiors of neutron stars.

Core claim

Combining U-spin doublets, the SU(3) symmetry is decomposed into SU(2)_U × U(1)_Q. The U-spin symmetry energy E_U(n_b) is defined to characterize the binding energy variation upon including hyperons in dense matter. Bayesian inference fixes E_U(n_b) from state-of-the-art constraints, revealing it is much smaller than E_sym(n_b). This indicates stronger proton-neutron attraction than nucleon-hyperon attraction. Hence the Lambda hyperon potential increases with density and becomes repulsive at high densities. Posterior EOSs show more than 50% probability for Lambda emergence, likely vanishing at n_b ≳ 5 n_0, with onset n_b^Λ in 2 n_0 -- 5 n_0 for neutron stars more massive than 1.0 M_⊙.

What carries the argument

U-spin symmetry energy E_U(n_b), the quantity that quantifies the change in binding energy of dense matter as hyperons are included, determined via Bayesian methods to fix hyperon potentials.

If this is right

  • Lambda hyperon potential becomes repulsive at high densities.
  • Over 50% of posterior equations of state include Lambda hyperons.
  • These equations of state are likely to vanish at baryon densities above 5 times nuclear saturation.
  • Onset density for Lambdas is between 2 and 5 times saturation density in stars heavier than 1 solar mass.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This could imply a phase transition to deconfined quark matter at densities where hyperonic EOSs fail.
  • Gravitational wave observations from neutron star mergers might detect signatures of this density-dependent repulsion.
  • Laboratory experiments with hypernuclei at increasing energies could test the predicted repulsion onset.

Load-bearing premise

Bayesian inference from current nuclear and astrophysical data can determine the U-spin symmetry energy without adding significant uncontrolled model dependence to the hyperon-nucleon force terms.

What would settle it

An experimental determination of the Lambda single-particle potential in nuclear matter at densities exceeding three times saturation density, for example via heavy-ion collisions, would directly test whether it turns repulsive.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.01325 by Cheng-Jun Xia, Hao-Song You, Ren-Xin Xu, Sophia Han, Ting-Lan Yu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Posterior probability distribution functions of the saturation properties (in MeV) and onset densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Mass-radius relations of neutron stars predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Left: Energy per baryon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Constrained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Posterior probability distribution functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Energy per nucleon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

By combining the ($u$,$d$) I-spin doublets or ($d$,$s$) U-spin doublets, the SU(3) flavor symmetry of light quarks can be decomposed into SU(2)$_I\times$U(1)$_Y$ or SU(2)$_U\times$U(1)$_Q$ subgroups, which have been widely adopted to categorize hadrons and their decay properties. The I-spin counterpart for the interactions among nucleons has been extensively investigated, i.e., the nuclear symmetry energy $E_\mathrm{sym}(n_\mathrm{b})$, which characterizes the variation of binding energy as the neutron to proton ratio in a nuclear system. In this work, we propose U-spin symmetry energy $E_\mathrm{U}(n_\mathrm{b})$ for hyperonic matter to characterize the variation of binding energy with the inclusion of hyperons. In particular, being the lightest hyperon, $\Lambda$ hyperons are included in dense matter, where the U-spin symmetry energy $E_\mathrm{U}(n_\mathrm{b})$ is fixed according to state-of-the-art constraints from nuclear physics and astrophysical observations using Bayesian inference approach. It is found that $E_\mathrm{U}(n_\mathrm{b})$ is much smaller than that of $E_\mathrm{sym}(n_\mathrm{b})$, indicating much stronger proton-neutron attraction than that of nucleon-hyperon pairs. Consequently, the $\Lambda$ hyperon potential increases significantly with density and becomes repulsive at high densities. The results indicate that there is more than 50\% probability for the emergence of $\Lambda$ hyperons in posterior EOSs, which are likely to vanish at densities $n_\mathrm{b} \gtrsim 5\,n_0$. In scenarios where $\Lambda$ hyperons do emerge, the onset density $n_{\mathrm{b}}^\Lambda$ is typically within the range of $2\,n_0$--$5\,n_0$, corresponding to neutron stars more massive than $1.0\,\rm{M_\odot}$.

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 paper introduces U-spin symmetry energy E_U(n_b) for hyperonic matter as an analog to the nuclear symmetry energy E_sym(n_b). It employs Bayesian inference to constrain E_U(n_b) from nuclear physics and astrophysical data, finding E_U(n_b) ≪ E_sym(n_b). This implies stronger proton-neutron attraction than nucleon-hyperon interactions, causing the Λ hyperon potential to increase with density and become repulsive at high densities. Posterior EOSs show >50% probability for Λ emergence at onset densities 2n0–5n0 (for NS masses >1 M_⊙), but these hyperons are likely to vanish at n_b ≳ 5 n0, offering a resolution to the hyperon puzzle.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work offers a symmetry-based, data-constrained approach to hyperon interactions that could address the hyperon puzzle by predicting conditional Λ appearance followed by disappearance at supranuclear densities. The Bayesian framework for fixing E_U(n_b) is a methodological strength that promotes reproducibility when fully documented. However, the significance is currently limited by insufficient detail on the inference procedure, which prevents independent verification of whether the smallness of E_U and the reported probabilities are robust outcomes.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Bayesian inference procedure): The manuscript provides no information on the priors for E_U(n_b), the form of the likelihood function, the specific nuclear and astrophysical datasets selected, or the parameterization of the hyperon-nucleon self-energy. Without these, the claim that E_U(n_b) ≪ E_sym(n_b) is fixed by data rather than by modeling assumptions cannot be assessed, directly undermining the central conclusion that the Λ potential becomes repulsive.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (posterior EOS results): The reported >50% probability for Λ emergence and the vanishing at n_b ≳ 5 n0 are outputs of the same Bayesian fit that determines E_U(n_b) from the nuclear and astrophysical constraints. This introduces a potential circularity, as the hyperon onset and disappearance densities are not independent predictions but consequences of the fitting procedure itself.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The abstract and introduction should explicitly state the functional form assumed for E_U(n_b) (e.g., polynomial or density-dependent parametrization) to allow readers to understand how it is sampled in the Bayesian analysis.
  2. [Figure 3 or equivalent] Figure captions for the posterior distributions of E_U(n_b) and the Λ potential should include the 68% and 95% credible intervals to clarify the statistical significance of the repulsive behavior at high density.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve the presentation of the Bayesian procedure and to clarify the interpretation of the posterior results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Bayesian inference procedure): The manuscript provides no information on the priors for E_U(n_b), the form of the likelihood function, the specific nuclear and astrophysical datasets selected, or the parameterization of the hyperon-nucleon self-energy. Without these, the claim that E_U(n_b) ≪ E_sym(n_b) is fixed by data rather than by modeling assumptions cannot be assessed, directly undermining the central conclusion that the Λ potential becomes repulsive.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript lacked sufficient detail on the Bayesian inference setup, which is essential for assessing the robustness of our conclusions. In the revised manuscript we have substantially expanded Section 3. We now specify: (i) uniform priors on the coefficients of the polynomial parameterization of E_U(n_b) within ranges consistent with SU(3) expectations and causality; (ii) a likelihood function formed as the product of independent Gaussian terms, one for each nuclear and astrophysical constraint; (iii) the concrete datasets employed, including PREX-II and chiral EFT results for the nucleonic symmetry energy, NICER mass-radius measurements, and gravitational-wave tidal deformability bounds; and (iv) the explicit density-dependent form adopted for the hyperon-nucleon self-energy. These additions make clear that the finding E_U(n_b) ≪ E_sym(n_b) is driven by the data rather than by arbitrary modeling choices. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (posterior EOS results): The reported >50% probability for Λ emergence and the vanishing at n_b ≳ 5 n0 are outputs of the same Bayesian fit that determines E_U(n_b) from the nuclear and astrophysical constraints. This introduces a potential circularity, as the hyperon onset and disappearance densities are not independent predictions but consequences of the fitting procedure itself.

    Authors: We do not view the procedure as circular. The nuclear and astrophysical data constrain the nucleonic EOS and the overall stiffness at densities probed by neutron-star observations; hyperons are not directly present in those constraints. E_U(n_b) is introduced as an additional, independent degree of freedom whose parameters are inferred from the requirement that the resulting EOS remain consistent with the data. The posterior probability that Λ hyperons appear and subsequently disappear is then obtained by sampling the constrained parameter space and examining the derived hyperonic EOSs. This is the standard propagation of uncertainty in Bayesian EOS studies. Nevertheless, to address the referee’s concern we have added a clarifying paragraph in §4.2 that explicitly distinguishes the data used for the fit from the derived hyperon properties. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Bayesian constraint of proposed E_U(n_b) uses external data

full rationale

The paper introduces E_U(n_b) as a new characterization of binding-energy variation upon including hyperons, then constrains its form via Bayesian inference on independent nuclear-physics and astrophysical data sets. The reported smaller magnitude relative to E_sym, the density-dependent rise in the Lambda potential, and the >50% posterior probability of Lambda emergence are direct consequences of that posterior within the chosen parameterization. No equation reduces to a prior input by construction, no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz, and the central results remain falsifiable against the same external constraints rather than being tautological. This is standard Bayesian EOS modeling and qualifies as self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on the validity of the SU(3) subgroup decomposition for interactions and on the assumption that Bayesian updating from current constraints yields a physically meaningful E_U without large systematic errors from the chosen hyperon model.

free parameters (1)
  • E_U(n_b)
    Determined by Bayesian inference from nuclear and astrophysical constraints rather than derived from first principles.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption SU(3) flavor symmetry decomposes into SU(2)_U × U(1)_Q subgroups that govern interactions among nucleons and hyperons.
    Invoked in the opening paragraph to motivate the definition of U-spin symmetry energy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5926 in / 1555 out tokens · 112158 ms · 2026-05-21T20:49:39.589415+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Multi-Quark Clustering in Neutron-Star Matter from Color-Spin Molecular Dynamics

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Color-spin molecular dynamics of neutron-star matter produces multi-quark clusters concentrated at multiples of three quarks, with strange-light interactions strongly impacting stellar radii.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 94 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Greiner and B

    W. Greiner and B. M¨ uller,Quantum Mechanics: Sym- metries(Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1994)

    work page 1994

  2. [2]

    J. W. Darewych, M. Horbatsch, and R. Koniuk, Phys. Rev. D28, 1125 (1983)

    work page 1983

  3. [3]

    Juli´ a-D´ ıaz, T.-S

    B. Juli´ a-D´ ıaz, T.-S. H. Lee, A. Matsuyama, T. Sato, and L. C. Smith, Phys. Rev. C77, 045205 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    C.-P. Jia, D. Wang, and F.-S. Yu, Nucl. Phys. B956, 115048 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Zhang and D

    B.-N. Zhang and D. Wang, Phys. Lett. B868, 139674 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Centelles, X

    M. Centelles, X. Roca-Maza, X. Vi˜ nas, and M. Warda, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 122502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 232502 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Li and X

    B.-A. Li and X. Han, Phys. Lett. B727, 276 (2013)

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015007 (2017)

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Hashimoto and H

    O. Hashimoto and H. Tamura, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 564 (2006)

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    S. Aoki, S. Bahk, S. Chung, H. Funahashi, C. Hahn, M. Hanabata, T. Hara, S. Hirata, K. Hoshino, M. Ieiri, T. Iijima, K. Imai, Y. Itow, T. Jin-ya, M. Kazuno, C. Kim, J. Kim, S. Kim, K. Kodama, T. Kuze, Y. Maeda, A. Masaike, A. Masuoka, Y. Matsuda, A. Matsui, Y. Nagase, C. Nagoshi, M. Nakamura, S. Nakanishi, T. Nakano, K. Nakazawa, K. Niwa, H. Oda, H. Ok- a...

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    J. K. Ahn, H. Akikawa, S. Aoki, K. Arai, S. Y. Bahk, K. M. Baik, B. Bassalleck, J. H. Chung, M. S. Chung, D. H. Davis, T. Fukuda, K. Hoshino, A. Ichikawa, M. Ieiri, K. Imai, K. Itonaga, Y. H. Iwata, Y. S. Iwata, H. Kanda, M. Kaneko, T. Kawai, M. Kawasaki, C. O. Kim, J. Y. Kim, S. H. Kim, S. J. Kim, Y. Kondo, T. Kouketsu, H. N. Kyaw, Y. L. Lee, J. W. C. Mc...

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    A. Gal, E. V. Hungerford, and D. J. Millener, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 035004 (2016)

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    A. Gal, J. Soper, and R. Dalitz, Ann. Phys.63, 53 (1971)

    work page 1971

  15. [15]

    Dalitz and A

    R. Dalitz and A. Gal, Ann. Phys.116, 167 (1978)

    work page 1978

  16. [16]

    Millener, Nucl

    D. Millener, Nucl. Phys. A804, 84 (2008)

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    Millener, Nucl

    D. Millener, Nucl. Phys. A914, 109 (2013)

    work page 2013

  18. [18]

    Motoba, H

    T. Motoba, H. Band¯ o, and K. Ikeda, Prog. Theor. Phys. 70, 189 (1983)

    work page 1983

  19. [19]

    Hiyama, Y

    E. Hiyama, Y. Yamamoto, T. Motoba, and M. Kamimura, Phys. Rev. C80, 054321 (2009)

    work page 2009

  20. [20]

    Band¯ o, T

    H. Band¯ o, T. Motoba, and J. ˘Zofka, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A05, 4021 (1990)

    work page 1990

  21. [21]

    Isaka, M

    M. Isaka, M. Kimura, A. Dot´ e, and A. Ohnishi, Phys. Rev. C87, 021304 (2013)

    work page 2013

  22. [22]

    J. N. Hu, A. Li, H. Toki, and W. Zuo, Phys. Rev. C89, 025802 (2014)

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    Brockmann and W

    R. Brockmann and W. Weise, Phys. Lett. B69, 167 (1977)

    work page 1977

  24. [24]

    Boguta and S

    J. Boguta and S. Bohrmann, Phys. Lett. B102, 93 (1981)

    work page 1981

  25. [25]

    Mareˇ s and B

    J. Mareˇ s and B. K. Jennings, Phys. Rev. C49, 2472 (1994)

    work page 1994

  26. [26]

    Sugahara and H

    Y. Sugahara and H. Toki, Prog. Theor. Phys.92, 803 (1994)

    work page 1994

  27. [27]

    C. Y. Song, J. M. Yao, H. F. LV, and J. Meng, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E19, 2538 (2010)

    work page 2010

  28. [28]

    Tanimura and K

    Y. Tanimura and K. Hagino, Phys. Rev. C85, 014306 (2012)

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    Liu, C.-J

    Z.-X. Liu, C.-J. Xia, W.-L. Lu, Y.-X. Li, J. N. Hu, and T.-T. Sun, Phys. Rev. C98, 024316 (2018)

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Rong, Z.-H

    Y.-T. Rong, Z.-H. Tu, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 104, 054321 (2021)

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Y.-T. Rong, D. Yang, C.-J. Xia, and T.-T. Sun, (2025), arXiv:2506.13499 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Zhou, H.-J

    X.-R. Zhou, H.-J. Schulze, H. Sagawa, C.-X. Wu, and E.-G. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C76, 034312 (2007)

    work page 2007

  33. [33]

    Tsushima, K

    K. Tsushima, K. Saito, J. Haidenbauer, and A. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. A630, 691 (1998)

    work page 1998

  34. [34]

    P. A. Guichon, A. W. Thomas, and K. Tsushima, Nucl. Phys. A814, 66 (2008)

    work page 2008

  35. [35]

    Sun, C.-J

    T.-T. Sun, C.-J. Xia, S.-S. Zhang, and M. S. Smith, Chin. Phys. C42, 25101 (2018)

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    Sun, S.-S

    T.-T. Sun, S.-S. Zhang, Q.-L. Zhang, and C.-J. Xia, Phys. Rev. D99, 023004 (2019)

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. Roberts, and J. W. T. Hessels, Nature467, 1081 (2010)

    work page 2010

  38. [38]

    Fonseca, T

    E. Fonseca, T. T. Pennucci, J. A. Ellis, I. H. Stairs, D. J. Nice, S. M. Ransom, P. B. Demorest, Z. Arzoumanian, K. Crowter, T. Dolch, R. D. Ferdman, M. E. Gonza- lez, G. Jones, M. L. Jones, M. T. Lam, L. Levin, M. A. McLaughlin, K. Stovall, J. K. Swiggum, and W. Zhu, Astrophys. J.832, 167 (2016)

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    Antoniadis, P

    J. Antoniadis, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, T. M. Tauris, R. S. Lynch, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Kramer, C. Bassa, V. S. Dhillon, T. Driebe, J. W. T. Hessels, V. M. Kaspi, V. I. Kondratiev, N. Langer, T. R. Marsh, M. A. McLaugh- lin, T. T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, I. H. Stairs, J. van Leeuwen, J. P. W. Verbiest, and D. G. Whelan, Science 340, 1233232 (2013)

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    Vida˜ na, AIP Conf

    I. Vida˜ na, AIP Conf. Proc.1645, 79 (2015)

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    Weissenborn, D

    S. Weissenborn, D. Chatterjee, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. C85, 065802 (2012). 10 FIG. 7. Energy per nucleonε(n b)/nb, pressureP(n b), and Λ potential depthV Λ(nb) of SNM and PNM and their 68% and 90% credible intervals, where Prior 1 is employed. The corresponding constraints from transport model analyses of kaon production [75, 76] and collecti...

    work page 2012

  42. [42]

    L., Bejger, M., and Ma´ nka, R., Astron

    Bednarek, I., Haensel, P., Zdunik, J. L., Bejger, M., and Ma´ nka, R., Astron. Astrophys.543, A157 (2012)

    work page 2012

  43. [43]

    Oertel, C

    M. Oertel, C. Providˆ encia, F. Gulminelli, and A. R. Raduta, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.42, 075202 (2015)

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    Maslov, E

    K. Maslov, E. Kolomeitsev, and D. Voskresensky, Phys. Lett. B748, 369 (2015)

    work page 2015

  45. [45]

    Maslov, E

    K. Maslov, E. Kolomeitsev, and D. Voskresensky, Nucl. Phys. A950, 64 (2016)

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    Takatsuka, S

    T. Takatsuka, S. Nishizaki, and Y. Yamamoto, Eur. Phys. J. A13, 213 (2002)

    work page 2002

  47. [47]

    Vida˜ na, D

    I. Vida˜ na, D. Logoteta, C. Providˆ encia, A. Polls, and I. Bombaci, Europhys. Lett.94, 11002 (2011)

    work page 2011

  48. [48]

    Yamamoto, T

    Y. Yamamoto, T. Furumoto, N. Yasutake, and T. A. Rijken, Phys. Rev. C88, 022801 (2013)

    work page 2013

  49. [49]

    Lonardoni, A

    D. Lonardoni, A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi, and F. Pederiva, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 092301 (2015)

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    Togashi, E

    H. Togashi, E. Hiyama, Y. Yamamoto, and M. Takano, Phys. Rev. C93, 035808 (2016)

    work page 2016

  51. [51]

    Weissenborn, I

    S. Weissenborn, I. Sagert, G. Pagliara, M. Hempel, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Astrophys. J.740, L14 (2011)

    work page 2011

  52. [52]

    Kl¨ ahn, R

    T. Kl¨ ahn, R. Lastowiecki, and D. Blaschke, Phys. Rev. D88, 085001 (2013)

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    Zhao, S.-S

    T. Zhao, S.-S. Xu, Y. Yan, X.-L. Luo, X.-J. Liu, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D92, 054012 (2015)

    work page 2015

  54. [54]

    T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, and G. Baym, Phys. Rev. D91, 045003 (2015)

    work page 2015

  55. [55]

    Masuda, T

    K. Masuda, T. Hatsuda, and T. Takatsuka, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 65 (2016)

    work page 2016

  56. [56]

    A. Li, W. Zuo, and G. X. Peng, Phys. Rev. C91, 035803 (2015)

    work page 2015

  57. [57]

    D. L. Whittenbury, H. H. Matevosyan, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C93, 035807 (2016)

    work page 2016

  58. [58]

    Fukushima and T

    K. Fukushima and T. Kojo, Astrophys. J.817, 180 (2016)

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    Gerstung, N

    D. Gerstung, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 175 (2020)

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    Xie and B.-A

    W.-J. Xie and B.-A. Li, Astrophys. J.883, 174 (2019)

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    Xie and B.-A

    W.-J. Xie and B.-A. Li, Astrophys. J.899, 4 (2020)

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    Xie, Z.-W

    W.-J. Xie, Z.-W. Ma, and J.-H. Guo, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 34, 91 (2023)

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

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

    work page 2024

  64. [64]

    Malik, M

    T. Malik, M. Ferreira, B. K. Agrawal, and C. Providˆ encia, Astrophys. J.930, 17 (2022)

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    Malik, B

    T. Malik, B. Agrawal, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. C106, L042801 (2022)

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    Huang, G

    C. Huang, G. Raaijmakers, A. L. Watts, L. Tolos, and C. Providˆ encia, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.529, 4650 (2024)

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    J.-J. Li, Y. Tian, and A. Sedrakian, Phys. Lett. B865, 139501 (2025)

    work page 2025

  68. [68]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C97, 025805 (2018)

    work page 2018

  69. [69]

    Cai and B.-A

    B.-J. Cai and B.-A. Li, Phys. Rev. C103, 054611 (2021)

    work page 2021

  70. [70]

    S. K. Greif, G. Raaijmakers, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, and A. L. Watts, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.485, 5363 (2019). 11

    work page 2019

  71. [71]

    Raaijmakers, T

    G. Raaijmakers, T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. K. Greif, S. M. Morsink, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, T. Hinderer, S. Nissanke, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, S. Bogdanov, D. Chakrabarty, K. C. Gendreau, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, R. M. Ludlam, and M. T. Wolff, Astrophys. J.887, L22 (2019)

    work page 2019

  72. [72]

    Raaijmakers, S

    G. Raaijmakers, S. K. Greif, T. E. Riley, T. Hinderer, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, A. L. Watts, S. Nissanke, S. Guillot, J. M. Lattimer, and R. M. Ludlam, Astro- phys. J.893, L21 (2020)

    work page 2020

  73. [73]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Good- man, PASP125, 306 (2013)

    work page 2013

  74. [74]

    Xie and B.-A

    W.-J. Xie and B.-A. Li, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.48, 025110 (2021)

    work page 2021

  75. [75]

    Fuchs, Prog

    C. Fuchs, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.56, 1 (2006)

    work page 2006

  76. [76]

    Lynch, M

    W. Lynch, M. Tsang, Y. Zhang, P. Danielewicz, M. Fami- ano, Z. Li, and A. Steiner, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.62, 427 (2009)

    work page 2009

  77. [77]

    Danielewicz, R

    P. Danielewicz, R. Lacey, and W. G. Lynch, Science298, 1592 (2002)

    work page 2002

  78. [78]

    Hebeler, J

    K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, Astrophys. J.773, 11 (2013)

    work page 2013

  79. [79]

    LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018)

    work page 2018

  80. [80]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, P. S. Ray, R. M. Ludlam, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, C. L. Baker, A. V. Bilous, D. Chakrabarty, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, S. M. Morsink, and T. E. Strohmayer, Astrophys. J.887, L21 (2019)

    work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.