pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11046 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · ⚛️ nucl-th · astro-ph.HE· astro-ph.SR· gr-qc· hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Sensitivity of Neutron Star Observables to Transition Density in Hybrid Equation-of-State Models

N. K. Patra , Sk Md Adil Imam , Kai Zhou
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRgr-qchep-ph
keywords neutron starsequation of statehybrid EoStransition densityspeed of soundtidal deformabilitynuclear modelsradius
0
0 comments X

The pith

The standard transition density of about twice nuclear saturation leaves neutron star radii and tidal deformabilities dependent on the low-density equation of state.

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

The paper matches four nucleonic models, all built from the same nuclear matter parameters, to identical high-density speed-of-sound extensions at a chosen transition density. It finds that at the commonly used value near twice saturation density the resulting hybrid equations of state still produce noticeably different neutron-star radii and tidal deformabilities because the matching conditions differ. These differences exceed present observational uncertainties. Moving the transition to saturation density shrinks the spread substantially, showing that the usual choice does not remove low-density model dependence.

Core claim

When four representative nucleonic equations of state are matched smoothly at a transition density ρ_tr ≈ 2ρ₀ to the same high-density speed-of-sound extension, the resulting hybrid models produce neutron star radii and tidal deformabilities that differ by amounts larger than current observational errors. This occurs because variations in the matching conditions at ρ_tr lead to different effective high-density behaviors. The spread shrinks substantially when the transition is placed at ρ_tr = ρ₀ instead.

What carries the argument

The smooth-matching prescription at the transition density ρ_tr, which fixes the starting pressure, energy density, and their derivatives for the high-density speed-of-sound parametrization from the low-density nucleonic input.

If this is right

  • At ρ_tr ≈ 2ρ₀ the model spread in radius at 1.4 solar masses exceeds current observational uncertainty by a factor of about 1.8.
  • At ρ_tr ≈ 2ρ₀ the model spread in tidal deformability at 1.4 solar masses exceeds current observational uncertainty by a factor of about 1.4.
  • Lowering ρ_tr to saturation density reduces the radius spread factor to about 1.05 and the tidal deformability spread factor to about 0.4.
  • The choice of transition density must be treated as an explicit systematic uncertainty when using neutron-star observations to constrain dense matter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Bayesian inferences that fix the transition density near 2ρ₀ may systematically understate the uncertainty coming from the low-density nuclear sector.
  • Alternative matching schemes that do not rely on smooth continuity at a single density could further reduce the residual model dependence.
  • Higher-precision radius or tidal measurements could be used to test whether an optimal transition density exists that truly decouples low- and high-density regimes.

Load-bearing premise

That any differences among the low-density nucleonic models affect neutron-star structure only through the values they supply at the transition density and produce no further model-specific effects at higher densities.

What would settle it

A calculation showing that, for fixed speed-of-sound parameters, matching different nucleonic models at ρ_tr ≈ 2ρ₀ yields identical pressure-density relations above ρ_tr and therefore identical neutron-star radii and tidal deformabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11046 by Kai Zhou, N. K. Patra, Sk Md Adil Imam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Baryon chemical potential as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Equation of state and neutron star observables for different transition densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Equation of state and neutron star observables for a fixed low-density nucleonic model matched to the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Same as Fig. 2, but, for results using Set2 parameters as listed in Table I. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Same as Fig. 3, but, for results using Set2 parameters as listed in Table I. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate how the transition density \(\rho_{tr}\) affects hybrid constructions of the neutron-star equation of state (EoS) in which a nucleonic description at low densities is matched to a model-agnostic high-density extension based on a speed-of-sound parametrization. Using four representative nucleonic models--Taylor expansion, \(\frac{n}{3}\) expansion, Skyrme, and relativistic mean-field--built from identical nuclear matter parameters, we isolate the impact of the low-density EoS and the transition density on neutron star observables. We find that, within the present smooth-matching prescription, neutron star properties such as radii and tidal deformabilities retain significant sensitivity to the choice of low-density EoS for commonly adopted transition densities around \(\rho_{tr} \approx 2\rho_0\), even when the same high-density parametrization is employed. This residual dependence arises from differences in the matching conditions at \(\rho_{tr}\), which propagate into the high-density extension, so different low-density inputs lead to different effective high-density EoSs. These findings are robust across two distinct speed-of-sound parametrizations. Quantitatively, the model spread in radius and tidal deformability at $1.4\,M_\odot$ exceeds the current observational uncertainty by factors of $\sim 1.8$ and $\sim 1.4$ at $\rho_{\mathrm{tr}} \approx 2\rho_0$, whereas these factors reduce to $\sim 1.05$ and $\sim 0.4$ at $\rho_{\mathrm{tr}} = \rho_0$. Lowering the transition density, therefore, systematically diminishes the spread among models and leads to more consistent predictions. Our results demonstrate that the widely used choice \(\rho_{tr} \approx 2\rho_0\) does not guarantee model independence in hybrid EoS constructions, and should be treated as an explicit source of systematic uncertainty when inferring dense matter properties from neutron star observations.

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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper performs a controlled numerical sensitivity study of hybrid neutron-star equations of state. Four nucleonic models (Taylor expansion, n/3 expansion, Skyrme, and relativistic mean-field) are constructed from identical nuclear-matter parameters and smoothly matched at a variable transition density ρ_tr to two distinct speed-of-sound parametrizations for the high-density regime. The resulting spreads in radius R_{1.4} and tidal deformability Λ_{1.4} are compared to current observational uncertainties, showing that the spread at ρ_tr ≈ 2ρ_0 exceeds those uncertainties by factors of ~1.8 and ~1.4 while the factors drop to ~1.05 and ~0.4 at ρ_tr = ρ_0.

Significance. If the numerical results hold, the work supplies a concrete, reproducible quantification of residual model dependence arising from the low-density EoS choice and the smooth-matching conditions at ρ_tr. The use of four representative nucleonic models built from the same nuclear-matter parameters, together with two independent high-density parametrizations, isolates the effect of the junction values of energy density and pressure. This directly supports the claim that ρ_tr ≈ 2ρ_0 should be treated as an explicit source of systematic uncertainty in inferences from neutron-star observations.

minor comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (model construction): the statement that all four nucleonic models are built from “identical nuclear-matter parameters” should be accompanied by an explicit table listing the numerical values of saturation density, binding energy, symmetry energy, and slope parameters used for each model to allow immediate verification of the controlled comparison.
  2. [Figure 4] Figure 4 and associated text: the observational uncertainty bands used to compute the quoted factors (~1.8 and ~1.4) are referenced only in the caption; a brief sentence in the main text stating the adopted 1σ uncertainties on R_{1.4} and Λ_{1.4} would improve readability.
  3. [§4.2] §4.2 (propagation of matching conditions): the sentence “differences in the matching conditions at ρ_tr … propagate into the high-density extension” would benefit from a short analytic illustration (e.g., how a small ΔP at ρ_tr shifts the integration constant in the speed-of-sound integration) before the numerical results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive and accurate summary of our work, as well as for highlighting its significance and recommending minor revision. The assessment correctly identifies the controlled nature of our sensitivity study and the implications for treating transition density as a systematic uncertainty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper conducts a forward numerical sensitivity analysis by building four nucleonic EoS models (Taylor, n/3, Skyrme, RMF) from identical nuclear-matter parameters, then applying the same smooth-matching conditions to a fixed speed-of-sound high-density extension at chosen ρ_tr values. The reported spreads in R_1.4 and Λ_1.4 are computed outputs of these explicit constructions and the resulting differences in junction values of ε and P; they do not reduce by the paper's own equations to any fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is invoked as load-bearing. The central claim—that ρ_tr ≈ 2ρ_0 leaves residual model dependence—is therefore a direct quantification from the controlled numerical comparison rather than an internal tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on numerical results obtained by matching four nucleonic EoS (Taylor, n/3, Skyrme, RMF) to speed-of-sound extensions under a smooth-matching condition at variable ρ_tr. It assumes the speed-of-sound parametrization remains model-agnostic once matched and that the only propagation of low-density differences occurs through the matching point.

free parameters (2)
  • transition density ρ_tr
    Explicitly varied as the control parameter; common literature value 2ρ₀ is tested against lower values.
  • speed-of-sound parametrization coefficients
    Parameters of the high-density extension; two distinct parametrizations are used but not fitted to the present data.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Smooth matching of pressure and energy density at ρ_tr is sufficient to connect low- and high-density regimes.
    Invoked in the hybrid-construction prescription described in the abstract.
  • domain assumption The four nucleonic models share identical nuclear-matter parameters at saturation.
    Stated as the basis for isolating the effect of the low-density EoS.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5682 in / 1733 out tokens · 48940 ms · 2026-05-10T16:32:03.559215+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    N. K. Glendenning,Compact stars: Nuclear physics, particle physics, and general relativity(Springer New York, 1997)

    1997

  2. [2]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rept.442, 109 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0612440

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  3. [3]

    Haensel, A

    P. Haensel, A. Y. Potekhin, and D. G. Yakovlev, Neutron stars 1: Equation of state and structure, Vol. 326 (Springer New York, 2007)

    2007

  4. [4]

    Equations of state for supernovae and compact stars

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015007 (2017), arXiv:1610.03361 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, and T. Takatsuka, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 056902 (2018), arXiv:1707.04966 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Rezzolla, P

    L. Rezzolla, P. Pizzochero, D. I. Jones, N. Rea, and I. Vida˜ na, eds.,The Physics and Astrophysics of Neutron Stars, Vol. 457 (Springer, 2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    J. M. Lattimer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.62, 485 (2012), arXiv:1305.3510 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Hebeler, J

    K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, Astrophys. J.773, 11 (2013), arXiv:1303.4662 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    J. M. Lattimer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 433 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    Ferreira and C

    M. Ferreira and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D104, 063006 (2021), arXiv:2110.00305 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Zhang, B.-A

    N.-B. Zhang, B.-A. Li, and J. Xu, Astrophys. J.859, 90 (2018), arXiv:1801.06855 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Omana Kuttan, J

    M. Omana Kuttan, J. Steinheimer, K. Zhou, and H. Stoecker, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 202303 (2023), arXiv:2211.11670 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Li and W.-J

    B.-A. Li and W.-J. Xie, Phys. Lett. B806, 135517 (2020), arXiv:1909.06616 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    M. G. Alford and S. P. Harris, Phys. Rev. C98, 065806 (2018), arXiv:1803.00662 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    T. G. Khunjua, K. G. Klimenko, and R. N. Zhokhov, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 995 (2020), arXiv:2005.05488 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Zhao and J

    T. Zhao and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D102, 023021 (2020), arXiv:2004.08293 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Malik and C

    T. Malik and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D106, 063024 (2022), arXiv:2205.15843 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Albino, T

    M. Albino, T. Malik, M. Ferreira, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D110, 083037 (2024), arXiv:2406.15337 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Bonanno and A

    L. Bonanno and A. Sedrakian, Astron. Astrophys.539, A16 (2012), arXiv:1108.0559 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2012

  20. [20]

    Benic, D

    S. Benic, D. Blaschke, D. E. Alvarez-Castillo, T. Fischer, and S. Typel, Astron. Astrophys.577, A40 (2015), arXiv:1411.2856 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    A. R. Raduta, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 115 (2022), arXiv:2205.03177 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Miyatsu, M.-K

    T. Miyatsu, M.-K. Cheoun, and K. Saito, Astrophys. J. 813, 135 (2015), arXiv:1506.05552 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    R. Li, S. Han, Z. Lin, L. Wang, K. Zhou, and S. Shi, Phys. Rev. D111, 074026 (2025), arXiv:2501.15810 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    B. P. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett.882, L24 (2019), arXiv:1811.12940 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Choudhury et al., Astrophys

    D. Choudhuryet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L20 (2024), arXiv:2407.06789 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Mauviard et al., arXiv:2506.14883 [astro-ph.HE] (2025),https://arxiv

    L. Mauviardet al., Astrophys. J.995, 60 (2025), arXiv:2506.14883 [astro-ph.HE] . 7

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    T. E. Rileyet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L21 (2019), arXiv:1912.05702 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L24 (2019), arXiv:1912.05705 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    T. E. Rileyet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L27 (2021), arXiv:2105.06980 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L28 (2021), arXiv:2105.06979 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Punturoet al., Class

    M. Punturoet al., Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  34. [34]

    Reitzeet al., Bull

    D. Reitzeet al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 035 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    E. R. Most, L. J. Papenfort, V. Dexheimer, M. Hanauske, S. Schramm, H. St¨ ocker, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 061101 (2019), arXiv:1807.03684 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Han and A

    S. Han and A. W. Steiner, Phys. Rev. D99, 083014 (2019), arXiv:1810.10967 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Komoltsev, Phys

    O. Komoltsev, Phys. Rev. D110, L071502 (2024), arXiv:2404.05637 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Huang and S

    C. Huang and S. Sourav, Astrophys. J.983, 17 (2025), arXiv:2502.11976 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Xia, Phys

    C.-J. Xia, Phys. Rev. D110, 014022 (2024), arXiv:2405.02946 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Verma, A

    A. Verma, A. K. Saha, and R. Mallick, Astrophys. J. 985, 1 (2025), arXiv:2501.06453 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    W. Zhou, H. Shen, J. Hu, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043017 (2024), arXiv:2407.11447 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    M. O. Celi, M. Mariani, M. G. Orsaria, I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, and G. Lugones, Phys. Rev. D112, 123001 (2025), arXiv:2511.01820 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, and S. Reddy, Astrophys. J.860, 149 (2018), arXiv:1801.01923 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    S. K. Greif, G. Raaijmakers, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, and A. L. Watts, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485, 5363 (2019), arXiv:1812.08188 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    I. Tews, J. Margueron, and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. C98, 045804 (2018), arXiv:1804.02783 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    Kurkela, P

    A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. D81, 105021 (2010), arXiv:0912.1856 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2010

  47. [47]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. N¨ attil¨ a, and A. Vuorinen, Nature Phys.16, 907 (2020), arXiv:1903.09121 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, J. Hirvonen, O. Komoltsev, A. Kurkela, J. N¨ attil¨ a, and A. Vuorinen, Nature Commun.14, 8451 (2023), arXiv:2303.11356 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, L. D. McLerran, and M. Praszalowicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 252702 (2022), arXiv:2207.06753 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Sasaki, H

    C. Sasaki, H. K. Lee, W.-G. Paeng, and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. D84, 034011 (2011), arXiv:1103.0184 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2011

  51. [51]

    L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, and B.-A. Li, Phys. Rev. C72, 064309 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0509009

    work page arXiv 2005

  52. [52]

    Chen, B.-J

    L.-W. Chen, B.-J. Cai, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, C. Shen, and J. Xu, Phys. Rev. C80, 014322 (2009), arXiv:0905.4323 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2009

  53. [53]

    W. G. Newton, J. Hooker, M. Gearheart, K. Murphy, D.-H. Wen, F. J. Fattoyev, and B.-A. Li, Eur. Phys. J. A50, 41 (2014), arXiv:1506.02207 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2014

  54. [54]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C97, 025805 (2018), arXiv:1708.06894 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2018

  55. [55]

    Margueron and F

    J. Margueron and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C99, 025806 (2019), arXiv:1807.01729 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    S. M. A. Imam, N. K. Patra, C. Mondal, T. Malik, and B. K. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. C105, 015806 (2022), arXiv:2110.15776 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rept.621, 127 (2016), arXiv:1512.07820 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  58. [58]

    H. Gil, P. Papakonstantinou, C. H. Hyun, T.-S. Park, and Y. Oh, Acta Phys. Polon. B48, 305 (2017), arXiv:1611.04257 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2017

  59. [59]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Lourenco, J. S. Sa Martins, A. Delfino, J. R. Stone, and P. D. Stevenson, Phys. Rev. C85, 035201 (2012), arXiv:1202.3902 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2012

  60. [60]

    Chabanat, J

    E. Chabanat, J. Meyer, P. Bonche, R. Schaeffer, and P. Haensel, Nucl. Phys. A627, 710 (1997)

    1997

  61. [61]

    Margueron, J

    J. Margueron, J. Navarro, and N. Van Giai, Phys. Rev. C66, 014303 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0204030

    work page arXiv 2002

  62. [62]

    J. M. G. G´ omez, C. Prieto, and J. Navarro, Nucl. Phys. A549, 125 (1992)

    1992

  63. [63]

    B. K. Agrawal, S. Shlomo, and V. K. Au, Phys. Rev. C 72, 014310 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0505071

    work page arXiv 2005

  64. [64]

    H. Shen, H. Toki, K. Oyamatsu, and K. Sumiyoshi, Nucl. Phys. A637, 435 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9805035

    work page arXiv 1998

  65. [65]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, S. S. Avancini, B. V. Carlson, A. Delfino, D. P. Menezes, C. Providˆ encia, S. Typel, and J. R. Stone, Phys. Rev. C90, 055203 (2014), arXiv:1405.3633 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2014

  66. [66]

    J. D. Walecka, Annals Phys.83, 491 (1974)

    1974

  67. [67]

    C. D. Capano, I. Tews, S. M. Brown, B. Margalit, S. De, S. Kumar, D. A. Brown, B. Krishnan, and S. Reddy, Nature Astron.4, 625 (2020), arXiv:1908.10352 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  68. [68]

    Dietrich, M

    T. Dietrich, M. W. Coughlin, P. T. H. Pang, M. Bulla, J. Heinzel, L. Issa, I. Tews, and S. Antier, Science370, 1450 (2020), arXiv:2002.11355 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  69. [69]

    Venneti, S

    A. Venneti, S. Banik, and B. K. Agrawal, (2026), arXiv:2601.14194 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    S. M. A. Imam and N. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D112, 103018 (2025), arXiv:2509.07109 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    G. Baym, C. Pethick, and P. Sutherland, Astrophys. J. 170, 299 (1971)

    1971

  72. [72]

    Low Mass Neutron Stars and the Equation of State of Dense Matter

    J. Carriere, C. J. Horowitz, and J. Piekarewicz, Astrophys. J.593, 463 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0211015

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  73. [73]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev.55, 374 (1939)

    1939

  74. [74]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev.55, 364 (1939)

    1939

  75. [75]

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L17 (2022)

    2022

  76. [76]

    Linares, T

    M. Linares, T. Shahbaz, and J. Casares, Astrophys. J. 859, 54 (2018)

    2018

  77. [77]

    Hyperons and massive neutron stars: vector repulsion and SU(3) symmetry

    S. Weissenborn, D. Chatterjee, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. C85, 065802 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 90, 019904 (2014)], arXiv:1112.0234 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  78. [78]

    Chatterjee and I

    D. Chatterjee and I. Vida˜ na, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 29 (2016), arXiv:1510.06306 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2016

  79. [79]

    N. Alam, B. K. Agrawal, M. Fortin, H. Pais, C. Providˆ encia, A. R. Raduta, and A. Sulaksono, Phys. Rev. C94, 052801 (2016), arXiv:1610.06344 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2016

  80. [80]

    N. K. Patra, S. M. A. Imam, B. K. Agrawal, A. Mukherjee, and T. Malik, Phys. Rev. D106, 043024 (2022), arXiv:2203.08521 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

Showing first 80 references.