pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05042 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Recognition: unknown

Can a hybrid star with constant sound speed parametrization explain the new NICER mass-radius measurements ?

Suman Pal , Gargi Chaudhuri
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 15:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords hybrid starsconstant sound speedNICERmass-radius measurementsphase transitionquark matterneutron star equation of state
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hybrid star models with constant sound speed fit recent NICER pulsar data only when the energy density jump at the quark transition remains small.

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

This paper tests whether hybrid neutron stars, with a hadronic outer layer and a quark core described by constant sound speed, can account for the latest mass and radius measurements from NICER. Different assumptions about the surface temperature of one pulsar lead to different allowed ranges for the model parameters. The analysis shows consistency with observations for small jumps in energy density at the phase transition, but large jumps cannot support the heaviest stars observed. Higher sound speeds in the quark matter improve the match to the data across the tested hadronic equations of state.

Core claim

In the constant speed of sound framework for hybrid stars, lower values of the energy density discontinuity at the hadron-quark phase transition allow consistency with NICER mass-radius data for both density-independent and density-dependent hadronic equations of state. Large discontinuities are disfavored because they prevent the models from reaching the high masses required by observations such as those from PSR J0740+6620. Higher sound speeds in the quark phase tend to produce better agreement with the observational trends.

What carries the argument

The constant speed of sound parametrization, in which the speed of sound is fixed at a constant value in the quark matter phase above a transition density with an energy density jump.

If this is right

  • Consistency holds for certain hadronic EoS at low energy density jumps.
  • Large jumps in energy density are ruled out by the need to support massive neutron stars.
  • Higher quark matter sound speeds give better observational agreement.
  • Additional constraints come from maximum mass calculations using PSR J0740+6620 and PSR J0952-0607 data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Improved modeling of pulsar surface temperatures could narrow down the viable hybrid star parameter space.
  • If future observations confirm very high masses with specific radii, they might require even higher sound speeds or rule out phase transitions altogether.
  • The results highlight that phase transition properties, rather than just the hadronic part, are crucial for matching astrophysical data.

Load-bearing premise

That the three different surface temperature model scenarios for PSR J0030+0451 provide reliable mass-radius estimates, despite leading to significantly different conclusions on the allowed CSS parameters.

What would settle it

Detection of a neutron star with mass around 2.2 solar masses and a radius that would require a large energy density discontinuity in the CSS model would contradict the paper's favored parameter ranges.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05042 by Gargi Chaudhuri, Suman Pal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Panel (a) displays the pressure–baryon density relations for various hadronic models, and panel (b) shows the corresponding mass–radius relationships In view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Mass–radius relations for hybrid star configurations, based on the hadronic EoS shown in view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Transition density–energy density parameter space constrained by NICER measurements. The upper panel corre￾sponds to the FSU2R EoS, while the lower panel corresponds to the DD2 EoS. The left and right panels represent C 2 s = 0.6 and C 2 s = 0.9, respectively. The details of the NICER constraints : A: M = 1.37+0.17 −0.17M⊙, R = 13.11+1.30 −1.30 km; B: M = 1.20+0.14 −0.11M⊙, R = 11.16+0.90 −0.80 km; C: M = … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Maximum mass as a function of the transition density for different energy density gaps (indicated by the color bar) and various values of C 2 s : left panel (C 2 s = 0.4), middle panel (C 2 s = 0.6), and right panel (C 2 s = 0.9) for the density independent hadronic EoS view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Maximum mass as a function of the transition density for different energy density gaps (indicated by the color bar) and various values of C 2 s : left panel (C 2 s = 0.4), middle panel (C 2 s = 0.6), and right panel (C 2 s = 0.9) for the density dependent hadronic EoS view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Allowed parameter space of the CSS model from the constraints of PSR J0740+6620 and PSR J0952-0607 for three physically viable models. The x-axis represents the transition density ρtr, and the y-axis denotes the energy density discontinuity ∆ε view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dimensionless tidal deformability Λ as a function of mass for the hybrid star configurations corresponding to three physically viable models (FSU2R, BSR8 and DD2) . Each legend represents the CSS parameters: ρtr, ∆ε, and C 2 s . The arrow indicates the Λ1.4 constraint from the GW170817 event. is consistent with well-established results in the literature, which have shown that Λ is particularly sensitive to… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a reanalysis of NICER observations of PSR J0740+6620 and PSR J0030+0451 to test the consistency of various nuclear equations of state (EoS) within the framework of hybrid star models. In particular, we examine how different surface temperature models for PSR J0030+0451, categorized as Scenarios A, B, and C, lead to significantly different mass-radius estimates. We perform a comprehensive study constraining the parameters of the constant speed of sound (CSS) model based on representative observational categories. Our findings indicate that for certain hadronic equations of state, including both density-independent and density-dependent cases, the results remain consistent for lower values of the energy density discontinuity, while discrepancies emerge as the discontinuity increases. Scenarios involving large jumps in energy density are generally disfavored by the requirement of supporting massive neutron stars, whereas higher values of the speed of sound in the quark matter phase tend to yield better agreement with observational trends. These results underscore the importance of phase transition characteristics in aligning hybrid star models with current astrophysical observations. We further constrain the CSS parameters using observational data from PSR J0740+6620 and PSR J0952-0607 by computing the maximum mass supported by these parameter sets.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes NICER mass-radius data for PSR J0740+6620 and PSR J0030+0451 within hybrid-star models employing the constant-speed-of-sound (CSS) parametrization for the quark-matter phase. It explores how three surface-temperature scenarios (A, B, C) for PSR J0030+0451 produce differing mass-radius posteriors, constrains the CSS parameters (sound speed c_s^{2}, energy-density jump Delta epsilon, transition density), and concludes that large energy-density discontinuities are generally disfavored by the requirement to support massive neutron stars while higher quark-matter sound speeds improve agreement; additional constraints are derived from PSR J0740+6620 and PSR J0952-0607.

Significance. If robust, the work supplies concrete bounds on hybrid-star phase-transition parameters and illustrates the sensitivity of CSS models to hadronic EoS choice and observational modeling. The explicit comparison across the three temperature scenarios for J0030+0451 is a useful diagnostic, though the lack of marginalization or preferred-scenario justification reduces the strength of the central claim that large jumps are disfavored.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and main text: the statement that 'scenarios involving large jumps in energy density are generally disfavored' is not robust because the abstract itself reports that Scenarios A, B, and C for PSR J0030+0451 yield significantly different allowed CSS regions. The paper does not marginalize over these scenarios or justify selecting one; the disfavoring conclusion is therefore conditional on an untested modeling choice rather than a model-independent observational requirement.
  2. [Abstract and parameter-constraint sections] The CSS parameters (c_s^{2}, Delta epsilon, transition density) are varied and directly constrained against the same NICER mass-radius posteriors used to test consistency. This reduces the exercise to a parameter fit rather than an independent prediction or falsification test of the hybrid-star hypothesis.
  3. [Results on CSS constraints] The claim that higher sound speeds 'tend to yield better agreement' is presented without quantitative metrics (e.g., chi-squared values, posterior widths, or overlap fractions) that would allow the reader to assess how much better the agreement is across the three scenarios.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and notation] Notation for the energy-density discontinuity and transition chemical potential should be defined once and used consistently; the abstract introduces 'energy density discontinuity' while later text may employ Delta epsilon without explicit cross-reference.
  2. [Results] The manuscript would benefit from a table summarizing the allowed ranges of c_s^{2} and Delta epsilon for each scenario and each hadronic EoS, including the maximum mass supported.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and provide detailed responses below. Revisions will be made to address valid concerns and improve clarity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and main text: the statement that 'scenarios involving large jumps in energy density are generally disfavored' is not robust because the abstract itself reports that Scenarios A, B, and C for PSR J0030+0451 yield significantly different allowed CSS regions. The paper does not marginalize over these scenarios or justify selecting one; the disfavoring conclusion is therefore conditional on an untested modeling choice rather than a model-independent observational requirement.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important point. The manuscript explores the impact of the three temperature scenarios explicitly, showing their differing effects on the allowed CSS parameter space. The statement regarding large energy density jumps being disfavored is based on the additional constraint from the maximum mass of PSR J0740+6620 and PSR J0952-0607, which requires that the hybrid EoS support masses above approximately 2 solar masses. This maximum mass constraint limits large Delta epsilon independently of the specific J0030+0451 posterior. We will revise the abstract and relevant sections to clarify that while the NICER consistency for J0030 depends on the scenario, the disfavoring of large jumps holds across scenarios due to the high-mass requirement. We note that a full marginalization would require priors on the scenarios, which are not available, but the paper presents results for all three to allow readers to assess the sensitivity. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract and parameter-constraint sections] The CSS parameters (c_s^{2}, Delta epsilon, transition density) are varied and directly constrained against the same NICER mass-radius posteriors used to test consistency. This reduces the exercise to a parameter fit rather than an independent prediction or falsification test of the hybrid-star hypothesis.

    Authors: The primary goal of the paper is to reanalyze the NICER data within the hybrid star framework using the CSS parametrization and to derive constraints on the model parameters. This approach is common in the literature for EoS studies, where observations are used to bound the allowed parameter space rather than making blind predictions. The hybrid-star hypothesis is tested by determining the ranges of CSS parameters for which the models remain consistent with the observed mass-radius relations while also satisfying the maximum mass constraint. We do not present it as an independent falsification but as a consistency analysis and constraint derivation. We will add a sentence in the introduction to better articulate this objective. revision: no

  3. Referee: [Results on CSS constraints] The claim that higher sound speeds 'tend to yield better agreement' is presented without quantitative metrics (e.g., chi-squared values, posterior widths, or overlap fractions) that would allow the reader to assess how much better the agreement is across the three scenarios.

    Authors: We agree that providing quantitative metrics would enhance the rigor of the comparison. In the revised version, we will include calculations of the overlap between the allowed CSS regions and the observational posteriors, or the fraction of parameter space consistent with the data for different values of c_s^2, to quantify the improvement in agreement for higher sound speeds. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard parameter constraints against observational data

full rationale

The paper constrains CSS parameters (sound speed, energy-density discontinuity, transition density) to NICER M-R posteriors for PSR J0030+0451 under three surface-temperature scenarios and further checks maximum masses against PSR J0740+6620 and PSR J0952-0607 data by solving the stellar structure equations. The statement that large discontinuities are disfavored follows directly from the requirement that the resulting hybrid EoS must support the observed high masses; this is an explicit consistency test, not a claimed first-principles prediction that reduces to the fitted inputs by construction. No self-definitional loops, fitted quantities renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the described derivation chain. The analysis is self-contained as a phenomenological parameter study whose outputs are the allowed ranges themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitting the CSS parameters to observational data while holding hadronic EoS fixed; no independent evidence is provided for the existence of a sharp phase transition or the validity of the constant sound speed assumption beyond its use in prior models.

free parameters (3)
  • quark matter sound speed c_s^2
    Varied across values to test agreement with NICER data; higher values reported to yield better fits.
  • energy density discontinuity Delta epsilon
    Treated as a free parameter whose magnitude is constrained; large values disfavored by maximum mass requirement.
  • transition density or chemical potential
    Implicitly varied as part of the CSS model setup to match stellar structure equations.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Beta equilibrium and charge neutrality hold throughout the star
    Standard assumption invoked when solving the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation for hybrid configurations.
  • domain assumption The hadronic equations of state (density-independent and density-dependent) are accurate representations of the outer layer
    Representative hadronic EoS are chosen and held fixed while varying only the quark phase parameters.
invented entities (1)
  • sharp first-order hadron-quark phase transition with energy density jump no independent evidence
    purpose: To model the interface between hadronic and quark matter in the hybrid star
    Postulated without independent falsifiable evidence outside the stellar mass-radius fit; large jumps are tested and disfavored.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5524 in / 1758 out tokens · 61972 ms · 2026-05-08T15:55:55.622124+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

45 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 —. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  2. [2]

    Agrawal, B. K. 2010, Phys. Rev. C, 81, 034323, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.034323

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.81.034323 2010

  3. [3]

    Generic conditions for stable hybrid stars.Phys

    Alford, M. G., Han, S., & Prakash, M. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 083013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.083013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.083013 2013

  4. [4]

    N., & Greiner, W

    Bhattacharyya, A., Mishustin, I. N., & Greiner, W. 2010, J. Phys. G, 37, 025201, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/37/2/025201

    work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/37/2/025201 2010

  5. [5]

    2021, Astron

    Blaschke, D., & Cierniak, M. 2021, Astron. Nachr., 342, 227, doi: 10.1002/asna.202113909

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.202113909 2021

  6. [6]

    L., Lewin, C

    Bozzola, G., Espino, P. L., Lewin, C. D., & Paschalidis, V. 2019, Eur. Phys. J. A, 55, 149, doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12831-2

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2019-12831-2 2019

  7. [7]

    Brandes and W

    Brandes, L., & Weise, W. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 034005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.034005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.034005 2025

  8. [8]

    2019, Phys

    Christian, J.-E., Zacchi, A., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 023009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.023009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.023009 2019

  9. [9]

    K., Kumar, R., & Agrawal, B

    Dhiman, S. K., Kumar, R., & Agrawal, B. K. 2007, Phys. Rev. C, 76, 045801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.76.045801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.76.045801 2007

  10. [10]

    M., et al

    Drischler, C., Han, S., Lattimer, J. M., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. C, 103, 045808, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.045808

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.103.045808 2021

  11. [11]

    and Louren c o, O

    Dutra, M., Louren¸ co, O., Avancini, S. S., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. C, 90, 055203, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.055203

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.90.055203 2014

  12. [12]

    2020, Phys

    Ferreira, M., Cˆ amara Pereira, R., & Providˆ encia, C. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 123030, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123030

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.123030 2020

  13. [13]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.021502 , eid =

    Flanagan, E. E., & Hinderer, T. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 021502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.021502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.021502 2008

  14. [14]

    2003, Prog

    Geng, L.-s., Toki, H., Sugimoto, S., & Meng, J. 2003, Prog. Theor. Phys., 110, 921, doi: 10.1143/PTP.110.921

    work page doi:10.1143/ptp.110.921 2003

  15. [15]

    Glendenning, N. K. 2000, Compact stars: Nuclear physics, particle physics, and general relativity (Springer-Verlag, New York)

    2000

  16. [16]

    K., & Moszkowski, S

    Glendenning, N. K., & Moszkowski, S. A. 1991, Phys. Rev. Lett., 67, 2414, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.2414

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.67.2414 1991

  17. [17]

    O., Char, P., & Schramm, S

    Gomes, R. O., Char, P., & Schramm, S. 2019, Astrophys. J., 877, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1751

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1751 2019

  18. [18]

    2019, Phys

    Prakash, M. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 103022, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.103022

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.103022 2019

  19. [19]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 677, 1216–1220, doi: 10.1086/533487

    Hinderer, T. 2008, Astrophys. J., 677, 1216, doi: 10.1086/533487

    work page doi:10.1086/533487 2008

  20. [20]

    J., & Piekarewicz, J

    Horowitz, C. J., & Piekarewicz, J. 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett., 86, 5647, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.5647

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.86.5647 2001

  21. [21]

    Laskos-Patkos, P., & Moustakidis, C. C. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 123023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.123023

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.123023 2023

  22. [22]

    H., & Lugones, G

    Lenzi, C. H., & Lugones, G. 2012, Astrophys. J., 759, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/57

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/57 2012

  23. [23]

    H., Lugones, G., & Vasquez, C

    Lenzi, C. H., Lugones, G., & Vasquez, C. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 083025, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.083025

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.083025 2023

  24. [24]

    J., Sedrakian, A., & Alford, M

    Li, J. J., Sedrakian, A., & Alford, M. 2025, JCAP, 02, 002, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/002

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/002 2025

  25. [25]

    2022, Phys

    Liu, H., Xu, J., & Chu, P.-C. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 043015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.043015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.043015 2022

  26. [26]

    Lugones, G., & Grunfeld, A. G. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, L101301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.L101301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.l101301 2021

  27. [27]

    Lugones, G., Mariani, M., & Ranea-Sandoval, I. F. 2023, JCAP, 03, 028, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/03/028

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/03/028 2023

  28. [28]

    Orsaria, M. G. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 043026, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.043026

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.043026 2024

  29. [29]

    2019, Phys

    Maslov, K., Yasutake, N., Ayriyan, A., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. C, 100, 025802, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.025802

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.100.025802 2019

  30. [30]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 887, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 —. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 918, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 2019

  31. [31]

    2019, Phys

    Montana, G., Tolos, L., Hanauske, M., & Rezzolla, L. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 103009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103009 14

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.103009 2019

  32. [32]

    R., Papenfort, L

    Most, E. R., Papenfort, L. J., Dexheimer, V., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 061101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.061101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.061101 2019

  33. [33]

    2025, Astrophys

    Pal, S., Podder, S., & Chaudhuri, G. 2025, Astrophys. J., 983, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbc6b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbc6b 2025

  34. [34]

    2020, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/06/042

    Lugones, G. 2020, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/06/042

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/06/042 2020

  35. [35]

    P., Flores, C

    Pereira, J. P., Flores, C. V., & Lugones, G. 2018, Astrophys. J., 860, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfbf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabfbf 2018

  36. [36]

    E., Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 887, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c —. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 918, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c 2019

  37. [37]

    2022, Astrophys

    Salmi, T., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 941, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac983d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac983d 2022

  38. [38]

    Sun, B., Bhattiprolu, S., & Lattimer, J. M. 2024, Phys. Rev. C, 109, 055801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.055801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.109.055801 2024

  39. [39]

    2017, Astrophys

    Tolos, L., Centelles, M., & Ramos, A. 2017, Astrophys. J., 834, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/3 2017

  40. [40]

    Moustakidis, C. C. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 023012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.023012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.023012 2023

  41. [41]

    Typel, S., Ropke, G., Klahn, T., Blaschke, D., & Wolter, H. H. 2010, Phys. Rev. C, 81, 015803, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.015803

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.81.015803 2010

  42. [42]

    L., et al

    Vinciguerra, S., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 961, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfb83

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfb83 2024

  43. [43]

    2011, Astrophys

    Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2011, Astrophys. J. Lett., 740, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/740/1/L14

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/740/1/l14 2011

  44. [44]

    2019, Phys

    Xia, C.-J., Maruyama, T., Yasutake, N., & Tatsumi, T. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 103017, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103017

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.103017 2019

  45. [45]

    P., Chu, M.-c., Lin, L.-M., & Couch, S

    Zha, S., O’Connor, E. P., Chu, M.-c., Lin, L.-M., & Couch, S. M. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 125, 051102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.219901

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.219901 2020