pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.17231 · v1 · pith:6PLRXWP6new · submitted 2026-06-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc· hep-ph· nucl-th

Can a Slow and Strong Phase Transition in Neutron Stars Relieve Major Compact-Star Observation Tensions?

Chen Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 02:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qchep-phnucl-th
keywords neutron starshybrid starsphase transitionequation of statecompact objectsgravitational waves
0
0 comments X

The pith

Slow hadron-quark phase transitions produce stable hybrid branches that fit both high-mass and low-radius compact-star data.

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

The paper tests whether a strong first-order phase transition from hadronic to quark matter, with slow conversion, can reconcile conflicting observations of neutron stars. Observations show some low-mass stars with unexpectedly small radii and one high-mass component that exceeds standard limits. The mechanism relies on extended stable branches of hybrid stars that become accessible only when the phase change is slower than radial oscillations. Parameter scans over equations of state find two patterns where the same model satisfies the high-mass event on the hadronic branch and the small-radius events on the hybrid branches while remaining consistent with other constraints.

Core claim

In both piecewise-polytropic and speed-of-sound parametrizations, two viable patterns emerge: one EOS places the GW190814-scale mass on the pure hadronic branch, HESS J1731-347 also on the hadronic branch, and XTE J1814-338 on the slow stable hybrid branch; the second pattern reaches the two small-radius objects on slow hybrid branches in different transition-strength regimes while keeping the high-mass object on the hadronic branch.

What carries the argument

Slow stable hybrid branches that appear when the hadron-quark phase conversion time exceeds the radial oscillation period, allowing metastable configurations beyond the usual maximum mass.

If this is right

  • One equation of state can simultaneously accommodate the GW190814 secondary mass, HESS J1731-347 radius, and XTE J1814-338 radius on different branches.
  • The hybrid branches remain compatible with the tidal deformability limits from GW170817 and the NICER radius measurements.
  • Strong transitions produce two distinct patterns depending on whether the small-radius objects share the same transition strength.
  • The hadronic branch alone can reach the high-mass regime while the hybrid branch supplies the low-radius solutions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future gravitational-wave events with intermediate masses could populate both branches and thereby map the transition density.
  • If confirmed, the mechanism would imply that some observed compact objects are hybrid stars even if their masses overlap the ordinary neutron-star range.
  • The same slow-conversion assumption might affect cooling rates or glitch behavior in a way distinguishable from purely hadronic models.

Load-bearing premise

The phase conversion between hadronic and quark matter must occur slowly relative to the star's radial oscillation timescale.

What would settle it

A precise mass-radius measurement of a single object whose properties lie outside both the hadronic and slow-hybrid branches of every EOS that otherwise fits the current data set.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17231 by Chen Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: M–R scans in the BPS+χEFT(soft)+PP benchmark after the FLT and the Mmax > 2.55 M⊙ filters. Transitions are fixed at Mt = 2.51 (stars) and 2.60 M⊙ (boxes), with c 2 s,QM = 1. Black curves show the selected pure-hadronic branches up to MTOV, and thin gray curves show other passing hadronic branches from general parameter scans. Panels (a) and (b) highlight the benchmark branches with moderate- and highest-MT… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: M–R scans in the BPS+χEFT(stiff)+PP benchmark after the FLT and the Mmax > 2.55 M⊙ filters. Transitions are fixed at Mt = 2.51 (stars) and 2.60 M⊙ (boxes), with c 2 s,QM = 1. Black curves show the selected pure-hadronic branches up to MTOV, and thin gray curves show other passing hadronic branches from the general parameter scans. Panels (a) and (b) highlight the benchmark branches with moderate- and highe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Tidal deformability Λ(M) for the benchmark scans of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Tidal deformability Λ(M) for the benchmark scans of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: M–R scans in the BPS+χEFT(soft)+CS comparison after the FLT and the Mmax > 2.55 M⊙ filters. Transitions are fixed at Mt = 2.51 (stars) and 2.60 M⊙ (boxes), with c 2 s,QM = 1. Black curves show the selected pure-hadronic branches up to MTOV, and thin gray curves show other passing hadronic branches. Panels (a) and (b) highlight the benchmark branches with moderate- and highest-MTOV, 2.717 M⊙ and 2.886 M⊙, r… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: M–R scans in the BPS+χEFT(stiff)+CS comparison after the FLT and the Mmax > 2.55 M⊙ filters. Transitions are fixed at Mt = 2.51 (stars) and 2.60 M⊙ (boxes), with c 2 s,QM = 1. Black curves show the selected pure-hadronic branches up to MTOV, and thin gray curves show other passing hadronic branches. Panels (a) and (b) highlight the benchmark branches with moderate- and highest-MTOV, 2.701 M⊙ and 2.851 M⊙, … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The same case as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The same case as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent anomalous compact-star observations challenge the conventional neutron-star interpretation in complementary ways: HESS J1731--347 and XTE J1814--338 favor unusually small radii at low mass, while the secondary component of GW190814 appears too massive for an ordinary neutron star under GW170817-based maximum-mass inferences. We examine whether neutron stars with a strong first-order hadron--quark phase transition can address these tensions via the extended stable hybrid branches that arise when the phase conversion is slow compared to radial oscillations, while remaining consistent with GW170817 and NICER constraints. Using a piecewise-polytropic (PP) benchmark, supplemented by an independent speed-of-sound (CS) parametrization comparison, we find two viable patterns in a general parameter scan over both the hadronic and hybrid branches. Scenario 1 realizes an all-at-once solution: the same EOS has a pure hadronic branch compatible with both the GW190814-scale mass and HESS J1731--347, while its slow stable hybrid branch reaches XTE J1814--338. Scenario 2 retains the GW190814-scale hadronic branch but reaches XTE J1814--338 and HESS J1731--347 on slow stable branches in different transition-strength regimes.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that slow and strong first-order hadron-quark phase transitions can relieve tensions among compact-star observations (GW190814 high mass, HESS J1731-347 and XTE J1814-338 small radii at low mass) by permitting extended stable hybrid branches. Using piecewise-polytropic and speed-of-sound parametrizations, a general scan over hadronic and hybrid branches identifies two viable patterns: Scenario 1 where one EOS satisfies GW190814 and HESS J1731-347 on the hadronic branch and XTE J1814-338 on the slow-stable hybrid branch; Scenario 2 where the small-radius objects are reached on hybrid branches in different transition-strength regimes, all while remaining consistent with GW170817 and NICER constraints.

Significance. If the slow-conversion stability extension holds and the scan results are robust, the work supplies a concrete mechanism that unifies apparently incompatible mass-radius measurements within a single EOS family, offering a falsifiable alternative to purely hadronic or other exotic explanations.

major comments (2)
  1. [stability criterion and scan results sections] The central claim that slow phase conversion (relative to radial-oscillation timescales) renders otherwise unstable hybrid configurations stable and accessible is load-bearing, yet the parameter scan applies the Maxwell-construction conditions without reporting explicit computation of the fundamental radial mode frequency (or an adjusted turning-point criterion) for any of the reported viable EOS points.
  2. [parameter scan description] The manuscript states that two viable patterns were found in a general parameter scan but provides no details on the scan procedure, convergence criteria, or selection rules used to identify viable patterns from the hadronic/hybrid parameter space; this directly affects the reliability of Scenarios 1 and 2.
minor comments (1)
  1. Tabulate the specific transition densities, strength parameters, and resulting maximum masses/radii for the two scenarios to allow direct reproducibility checks.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback. We address the two major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [stability criterion and scan results sections] The central claim that slow phase conversion (relative to radial-oscillation timescales) renders otherwise unstable hybrid configurations stable and accessible is load-bearing, yet the parameter scan applies the Maxwell-construction conditions without reporting explicit computation of the fundamental radial mode frequency (or an adjusted turning-point criterion) for any of the reported viable EOS points.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification of the radial stability for the reported viable points would strengthen the central claim. The manuscript relies on the established result from the literature that slow phase conversion extends stability beyond the usual turning-point criterion, but does not present new frequency calculations for the specific EOS identified in the scan. In revision we will add explicit fundamental-mode frequency computations (or equivalent adjusted turning-point checks) for representative viable EOS in both scenarios. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [parameter scan description] The manuscript states that two viable patterns were found in a general parameter scan but provides no details on the scan procedure, convergence criteria, or selection rules used to identify viable patterns from the hadronic/hybrid parameter space; this directly affects the reliability of Scenarios 1 and 2.

    Authors: We accept that additional methodological detail is required for reproducibility. The revised manuscript will include a new subsection that specifies the parameter ranges and sampling strategy for both the piecewise-polytropic and speed-of-sound families, the quantitative selection criteria (consistency with GW170817, NICER, and the target observations), and any convergence or filtering rules applied to isolate the two viable patterns. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; viability claims rest on explicit parameter scan

full rationale

The paper reports results from a general parameter scan over piecewise-polytropic and speed-of-sound EOS families, identifying regions where hadronic branches match high-mass constraints and slow-conversion hybrid branches match low-mass small-radius observations. No derivation step equates a claimed prediction to its own fitted inputs by construction, nor does any load-bearing premise reduce to a self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem. The slow-conversion stability extension is treated as an input assumption rather than derived within the scan, but this does not create a definitional loop. The central findings therefore remain independent of the scanned quantities themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard neutron-star EOS modeling assumptions plus the domain assumption of slow phase conversion; the parameter scan introduces several free parameters whose values are not reported in the abstract.

free parameters (3)
  • hadronic EOS parameters
    Parameters of the piecewise-polytropic hadronic branch chosen or fitted during the scan.
  • hybrid EOS parameters
    Parameters of the hybrid branch including transition location and strength.
  • transition strength and density
    Quantities controlling the first-order phase transition that are varied across the scan.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The hadron-quark conversion is a strong first-order phase transition.
    Invoked to generate the hybrid branches that address the tensions.
  • domain assumption Phase conversion proceeds slowly relative to radial oscillation timescales.
    Required for the existence of the extended stable hybrid branches.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5758 in / 1439 out tokens · 60413 ms · 2026-06-27T02:03:52.707189+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Systematic study of the morphology and length of slow stable hybrid star branches

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Systematic numerical survey classifies four types of slow stable hybrid star branches and shows slow conversion opens new viable parameter space for stiff hadronic models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    For slow conversion, used in the main analysis, they are [ξ] + − = 0 and [∆P] + − = 0

    For rapid phase conversion, the interface conditions are [∆P] + − = 0 and [ξ−∆P/(rP ′)]+ − = 0. For slow conversion, used in the main analysis, they are [ξ] + − = 0 and [∆P] + − = 0. For comparisons with gravitational wave observations, the dimensionless tidal deformability Λ = 2k2/(3C5) can be computed, whereC=M/Ris the compactness and k2 is the Love num...

  2. [2]

    (A2), using the boundary conditiony(0) = 2

    concurrently with the TOV equation Eq. (A2), using the boundary conditiony(0) = 2. For hybrid stars, the matching conditiony(r + d )−y(r − d ) =−4πr 3 d∆εd/(m(rd)+ 4πr3 dP(r d)) must be applied atr d (i.e., at the transition interface wherer core =r(P=P trans)), where an energy density jump ∆ε d occurs [99, 100]. Appendix B: Accelerated endpoints search: ...

  3. [3]

    integrate the TOV equations outward to the surface P(R) = 0

  4. [4]

    (A3) and (A4) withω 2 = 0, using the regular central conditionsξ(0) = 1 and (∆P) r=0 = −3(ξΓP) r=0

    integrate Eqs. (A3) and (A4) withω 2 = 0, using the regular central conditionsξ(0) = 1 and (∆P) r=0 = −3(ξΓP) r=0

  5. [5]

    at a first-order phase transition, apply the slow- conversion junction conditions [ξ] + − = 0 and [∆P] + − = 0 by keeping both perturbation variables continuous while switching the EOS branch in the background coefficients

  6. [6]

    evaluateF(P c) at the surface. The endpoint central pressureP ∗ c is the root of the one- dimensional equation F(P ∗ c ) = 0,(B2) which may be located with any robust scalar root finder once a bracketing interval has been identified. Each eval- uation ofF(P c) requires only one background integration and one zero-frequency perturbation integration, so the...

  7. [7]

    For the polytropic benchmark, each Hebeler et al. Fig. 6 parameter range is discretized withequally spaced samples between the quoted endpoints: four samples for hadronic selection and the coloured transition scans, and eight samples for the denser gray-background pool (the latter combined with causal-limit adaptive pruning). Both scans apply the same fil...

  8. [8]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  9. [9]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

    T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J.677, 1216 (2008)

    2008

  10. [10]

    Hinderer, B

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

    2010

  11. [11]

    Postnikov, M

    S. Postnikov, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D82, 024016 (2010)

    2010

  12. [12]

    M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L24 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    T. E. Rileyet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L21 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L28 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    T. E. Rileyet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L27 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    Choudhuryet al., Astrophys

    D. Choudhuryet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L20 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    Rutherfordet al., Astrophys

    N. Rutherfordet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L19 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    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]

    arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Annala, T

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

    arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Fujimoto, K

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

    arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Komoltsev, Phys

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

    arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett.896, L44 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    Margalit and B

    B. Margalit and B. D. Metzger, Astrophys. J. Lett.850, L19 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    Rezzolla, E

    L. Rezzolla, E. R. Most, and L. R. Weih, Astrophys. J. Lett.852, L25 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    M. Ruiz, S. L. Shapiro, and A. Tsokaros, Phys. Rev. D 97, 021501 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    Shibata, E

    M. Shibata, E. Zhou, K. Kiuchi, and S. Fujibayashi, Phys. Rev. D100, 023015 (2019). 10

    2019

  27. [27]

    Doroshenko, V

    V. Doroshenko, V. Suleimanov, G. Puehlhofer, and A. Santangelo, Nature Astronomy6, 1444 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    Kiniet al., Mon

    Y. Kiniet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. (2024), mass–radius inference used here through the project XTE 95 percent contour

    2024

  29. [29]

    Laskos-Patkos, P

    P. Laskos-Patkos, P. S. Koliogiannis, and C. C. Mous- takidis, Phys. Rev. D109, 063017 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Laskos-Patkos and C

    P. Laskos-Patkos and C. C. Moustakidis, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.18498 (2025), arXiv:2410.18498 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Yang, C.-M

    S.-H. Yang, C.-M. Pi, and F. Weber, Phys. Rev. D111, 043037 (2025), arXiv:2409.15969 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Mariani, I

    M. Mariani, I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, G. Lugones, and M. G. Orsaria, Phys. Rev. D110, 043026 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Zhou and C

    T. Zhou and C. Huang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2501.06379 (2025), arXiv:2501.06379 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Mariani and I

    M. Mariani and I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, Symmetry18, 27 (2026), arXiv:2602.06170 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Zhou and C

    T. Zhou and C. Huang, Astrophys. J.1002, 120 (2026)

    2026

  36. [36]

    X. Dong, H. Shen, J. Hu, and Y. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2604.21379 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Dexheimer, L

    V. Dexheimer, L. T. T. Soethe, J. Roark, R. O. Gomes, S. O. Kepler, and S. Schramm, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 27, 1830008 (2018)

    2018

  38. [38]

    Alford, M

    M. Alford, M. Braby, M. W. Paris, and S. Reddy, As- trophys. J.629, 969 (2005)

    2005

  39. [39]

    M. G. Alford, S. Han, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D 88, 083013 (2013)

    2013

  40. [40]

    Z. F. Seidov, Soviet Astronomy15, 347 (1971)

    1971

  41. [41]

    Schertler, C

    K. Schertler, C. Greiner, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and M. H. Thoma, Nucl. Phys. A677, 463 (2000)

    2000

  42. [42]

    Haensel, J

    P. Haensel, J. L. Zdunik, and R. Schaeffer, Astron. Astrophys.217, 137 (1989)

    1989

  43. [43]

    J. P. Pereira, C. V. Flores, and G. Lugones, Astrophys. J.860, 12 (2018)

    2018

  44. [44]

    Mariani, M

    M. Mariani, M. G. Orsaria, I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, and G. Lugones, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.489, 4261 (2019)

    2019

  45. [45]

    Lugones and A

    G. Lugones and A. G. Grunfeld, Universe7, 493 (2021)

    2021

  46. [46]

    Lugones, M

    G. Lugones, M. Mariani, and I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, JCAP03, 028 (2023), arXiv:2106.10380 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    V. P. Goncalves, J. C. Jimenez, and L. Lazzari, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 1117 (2022)

    2022

  48. [48]

    P. B. Rau and A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. D107, 103042 (2023)

    2023

  49. [49]

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

    2010

  50. [50]

    Antoniadiset al., Science340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

    J. Antoniadiset al., Science340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  51. [51]

    H. T. Cromartieet al.(NANOGrav), Nature Astronomy 4, 72 (2020), arXiv:1904.06759 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. M. Z. Pretel, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 113, 043006 (2026), arXiv:2507.01371 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    Z. Yang, T. Zeng, Y. Yan, W.-L. Yuan, C. Zhang, and E. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D113, 023021 (2026), arXiv:2507.00776 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Zhang and J

    C. Zhang and J. Ren, Phys. Rev. D108, 063012 (2023), arXiv:2211.12043 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Zhang, Y

    C. Zhang, Y. Luo, H.-b. Li, L. Shao, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D109, 063020 (2024), arXiv:2306.08234 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Negreiros, C

    R. Negreiros, C. Zhang, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D111, 063026 (2025), arXiv:2407.06410 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Zhang, Y

    C. Zhang, Y. Gao, C.-J. Xia, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123031 (2023), arXiv:2309.14114 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Teruya, G

    G. Teruya, G. Lugones, and A. G. Grunfeld, Phys. Rev. D113, 083025 (2026), arXiv:2511.16874 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Haensel, J

    P. Haensel, J. L. Zdunik, and R. Schaeffer, Astron. Astrophys.160, 121 (1986)

    1986

  60. [60]

    Alcock, E

    C. Alcock, E. Farhi, and A. Olinto, Astrophys. J.310, 261 (1986)

    1986

  61. [61]

    Zhang, Phys

    C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D101, 043003 (2020), arXiv:1908.10355 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    Ren and C

    J. Ren and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D102, 083003 (2020), arXiv:2006.09604 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  63. [63]

    Cao, L.-W

    Z. Cao, L.-W. Chen, P.-C. Chu, and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D106, 083007 (2022), arXiv:2009.00942 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    W.-L. Yuan, A. Li, Z. Miao, B. Zuo, and Z. Bai, Phys. Rev. D105, 123004 (2022), arXiv:2203.04798 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2022

  65. [65]

    Zhang and R

    C. Zhang and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D103, 063018 (2021), arXiv:2009.07182 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    Zhang, M

    C. Zhang, M. Gammon, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D104, 123007 (2021), arXiv:2108.13972 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    J. M. Z. Pretel and C. Zhang, JCAP10, 032 (2024), arXiv:2401.12519 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Y. Zhou, C. Zhang, J. Zhao, K. Kiuchi, S. Fu- jibayashi, and E. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D110, 103012 (2024), arXiv:2407.08544 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    Xie, C.-J

    W.-J. Xie, C.-J. Xia, C. Zhang, and R. Xu, arXiv e- prints (2025), arXiv:2506.22781 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Z. Miao, Z. Zhu, and D. Lai, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 091402 (2025), arXiv:2411.09013 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    X. Y. Lai and R. X. Xu, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters398, L31 (2009)

    2009

  72. [72]

    Zhang, Y

    C. Zhang, Y. Gao, C.-J. Xia, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 063002 (2023), arXiv:2305.13323 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    Li, G.-H

    C.-M. Li, G.-H. Yu, Y.-P. Zhao, Z. Li, J.-L. Zhang, Y.-L. Ma, and Y.-F. Huang, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2604.22382 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  74. [74]

    W.-L. Yuan, C. Huang, C. Zhang, E. Zhou, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D111, 063033 (2025), arXiv:2411.14938 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Yuan and B

    W.-L. Yuan and B. Gao, (2026), arXiv:2605.19657 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    A. R. Bodmer, Phys. Rev. D4, 1601 (1971)

    1971

  77. [77]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D30, 272 (1984)

    1984

  78. [78]

    Farhi and R

    E. Farhi and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D30, 2379 (1984)

    1984

  79. [79]

    Holdom, J

    B. Holdom, J. Ren, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 222001 (2018), arXiv:1707.06610 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  80. [80]

    Xu, Astrophys

    R.-X. Xu, Astrophys. J. Lett.596, L59 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

Showing first 80 references.