Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

The paper predicts that a 1.94-solar-mass hyperonic neutron star contracts by roughly half as it cools from a protoneutron star to a cold neutron star, cutting its moment of inertia by two-thirds and more than doubling its gravitational red

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 10:02 UTC pith:4WY4GPM3

load-bearing objection The qualitative thermal story is plausible, but the printed numbers are not internally consistent and Eq. (17) has a sign error that contaminates the moment-of-inertia claim. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2606.26539 v2 pith:4WY4GPM3 submitted 2026-06-25 nucl-th

Thermal Effects on the Moment of Inertia and Gravitational Redshift of PSR J1012+5307: Implications for Hyperonic Matter under SU(3) and SU(6) Symmetries

Y.Xu , X.L.Huang , Y.B.Wang , Q.Yuan , W.B.Ding , N.An , Y.F.Shen , Z.Yu This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords HyperonsProtoneutron starsRelativistic mean-field theoryEquation of stateMoment of inertiaGravitational redshiftTemperature dependenceSU(3)/SU(6) symmetry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to show that temperature alone, specifically the transition from a newborn protoneutron star to a cold neutron star, changes the structure of a hyperonic star by tens of percent, and that these changes are in principle observable. Using relativistic mean-field theory to build hot equations of state with hyperons, then solving the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations for PSR J1012+5307, it computes how radius, moment of inertia, and gravitational redshift evolve with temperature. For a 1.94-solar-mass star under SU(3) flavor symmetry, cooling from 30 MeV to 0 MeV shrinks the radius by about 48%, cuts the moment of inertia by roughly two-thirds, and raises the gravitational redshift by a factor of 2.42. The paper also finds that at fixed mass in the cold regime, hyperonic matter is nearly indistinguishable from purely nucleonic matter, making it hard to confirm the presence of hyperons in a cold pulsar. A sympathetic reader would care because these predictions turn the PNS-to-CNS transition into a potential probe of exotic matter.

Core claim

For a 1.94 solar-mass hyperonic star under SU(3) flavor symmetry, decreasing the temperature from T = 30 MeV to 0 MeV contracts the radius from 25.944 km to 13.400 km, a reduction of roughly 48%, lowers the moment of inertia from 8.380 × 10^45 g cm² to 2.747 × 10^45 g cm², a drop of nearly two-thirds, and raises the gravitational redshift from 0.133 to 0.322, a factor of 2.42. Mass uncertainty in PSR J1012+5307 also matters: at T = 20 MeV, increasing the mass from 1.72 to 1.94 solar masses contracts the radius by about 3 km, reduces the moment of inertia by roughly 10%, and increases the gravitational redshift by about 43%. In the cold regime, the macroscopic properties of hyperonic matter a

What carries the argument

The central object is a finite-temperature relativistic mean-field equation of state for baryonic matter containing the full baryon octet plus leptons with trapped neutrinos, built from the GM1 parameter set and hyperon-meson couplings fixed by SU(3) flavor and SU(6) spin-flavor symmetry relations. This EOS feeds the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations to obtain mass and radius; the moment of inertia comes from the slow-rotation frame-dragging integral, and the gravitational redshift from the surface formula z = 1/sqrt(1 - 2M/R) - 1. The workhorse mechanism is the temperature dependence of the EOS, which is non-monotonic, producing a large structural contraction as the star cools from 30 Me

Load-bearing premise

The central numbers rest on the GM1 parameter set and on hyperon-meson couplings fixed by SU(3)/SU(6) symmetry relations rather than by data; if the real high-density couplings deviate, and if the lepton fraction is not 0.4, the cold hyperonic star could differ measurably from the nucleonic one and the thermal signal could shift.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to measure the radius and gravitational redshift of a young, roughly 1.94-solar-mass neutron star shortly after birth and again after it cools: if the observed contraction is far smaller than the predicted 48%, or if the cold radius differs from the predicted 13.4 km by more than a few percent, the thermal-hyperonic scenario fails. Alternatively, a laboratory measurement of hyperon-nucleon interactions that rules out the SU(3)/SU(6) coupling values would invalidate the claim that cold hyperonic and nucleonic stars are nearly indistinguishable.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the prediction is correct, a newborn hyperonic protoneutron star at 1.94 solar masses is about twice as large as the cold star it becomes, so a cooling track observed over time would see a dramatic contraction.
  • The moment of inertia drops by two-thirds during cooling, which would significantly change the star's rotational evolution and spin-down behavior for a given spin.
  • In the cold state, hyperonic and nucleonic stars are almost indistinguishable for PSR J1012+5307, so radius or redshift measurements of cold pulsars alone cannot confirm hyperons.
  • Under SU(6) spin-flavor symmetry the cold hyperonic star cannot reach 1.94 solar masses, so the existence of such a massive cold star with hyperons would favor SU(3)-type couplings.
  • The mass uncertainty of PSR J1012+5307 translates into sizable changes in moment of inertia and gravitational redshift at T = 20 MeV; better mass measurements would sharpen the predicted protoneutron-star signatures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: If the predicted contraction is real, the same temperature-driven effect should apply to other intermediate-mass pulsars, making long-term monitoring of a young neutron star's spin-down and surface redshift a general test of exotic-matter equations of state.
  • Editorial extension: The cold degeneracy between hyperonic and nucleonic matter suggests that static radius or redshift measurements, however precise, cannot by themselves reveal hyperons; only observing the cooling evolution or pushing mass measurements past the SU(6) maximum mass could distinguish them.
  • Editorial extension: Because the calculation fixes the lepton fraction at Y_l = 0.4, the thermal predictions depend on neutrino trapping; relaxing this assumption could change the contraction magnitude, potentially linking the model to supernova neutrino observations.
  • Editorial extension: A two-thirds drop in moment of inertia during cooling would, in the absence of external torques, cause the star's spin frequency to change, so tracking the braking index of a young pulsar could indirectly expose the protoneutron-star-to-cold-star transition.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies thermal effects on the structural properties of protoneutron stars (PNSs) and cold neutron stars (CNSs) for the intermediate-mass pulsar PSR J1012+5307. Using relativistic mean-field theory with the GM1 parameter set and hyperon couplings fixed by SU(3) flavor and SU(6) spin-flavor symmetry, the authors compute equations of state, mass-radius relations, moments of inertia, and gravitational redshifts at temperatures T = 0, 20, and 30 MeV. The central claims are: (i) cooling a 1.94 M⊙ hyperonic star from T = 30 MeV to 0 MeV induces a large structural transformation, with radius contraction of about 48%, a large drop in moment of inertia, and a large increase in gravitational redshift; (ii) at fixed mass in the cold regime, hyperonic and purely nucleonic stars are nearly indistinguishable, making it difficult to confirm hyperons in PSR J1012+5307; and (iii) future long-term pulsar monitoring could probe the PNS-to-CNS transition.

Significance. If the quantitative claims were internally consistent and reproducible, the paper would provide a useful phenomenological study of thermal effects on observable pulsar properties, with a concrete target (PSR J1012+5307) and a clear falsifiable prediction about the PNS-to-CNS transition. The use of two symmetry schemes and the explicit tabulation of masses, radii, moments of inertia, and redshifts are strengths, as is the authors' explicit acknowledgment of the model dependence of the GM1 parameter set. However, the central quantitative claims are currently compromised by an apparent sign error in the metric function equation and by multiple contradictory numbers between the abstract and the main text. These issues must be resolved before the results can be assessed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (17), Eq. (15), Tables 2 and 3] Equation (17) gives dφ/dr = (m + 4πr³P)/[r(r + 2m)], but the standard Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff relation for the metric function is dφ/dr = (m + 4πr³P)/[r(r − 2m)]. With the printed plus sign, the exterior solution cannot match the Schwarzschild form e^{2φ} = 1 − 2M/r, and because Eq. (15) contains e^{−φ} multiplicatively inside the moment-of-inertia integral, every I value in Tables 2 and 3 is affected. This is a load-bearing issue, not a typographical nit: the headline claim of a near-two-thirds drop in I depends on this formula. The authors must either correct Eq. (17) and re-run the calculations or provide a justification for the nonstandard sign.
  2. [Abstract vs. Section 3/Table 3] The numerical results are internally inconsistent. For the 1.94 M⊙ SU(3) star, the abstract reports a moment-of-inertia drop of 'nearly 26%' while the main text and Table 3 report a drop from 8.380×10^45 to 2.747×10^45 g cm², i.e., a factor of about 0.33 (a two-thirds reduction). Similarly, the gravitational redshift increase is quoted as 'approximately 154%' in the abstract but '142%' in the body (from 0.133 to 0.322 is a factor of 2.42, or 142%). For the mass-variation sequence at T = 20 MeV, the abstract states an '8 percent increase' in the moment of inertia, whereas the body and Table 3 report a decrease from 4.704×10^45 to 4.211×10^45 g cm², a ~10% drop. These contradictions mean the reported quantitative findings are not stable as presented.
  3. [Table 3] Several entries in Table 3 are listed as dashes without explanation: the T = 30 MeV rows for 1.72 and 1.83 M⊙ under SU(3), and the T = 0 MeV row for 1.94 M⊙ under SU(6). Since Table 2 gives a maximum mass of 2.102 M⊙ for SU(3) at T = 30 MeV, the 1.72 and 1.83 M⊙ configurations should exist; their omission needs a reason. For SU(6) at T = 0, M_max = 1.853 M⊙, so the 1.94 M⊙ entry is likely above the maximum mass, but this should be stated explicitly. The table as printed is incomplete and undermines the comparison across the full mass range.
  4. [Section 3, final paragraph] The conclusion that cold hyperonic and nucleonic stars are 'nearly indistinguishable' is presented as a general finding, but it rests on the GM1 parameter set and on hyperon-meson couplings fixed by SU(3)/SU(6) symmetry relations (Table 1). The authors do acknowledge the model dependence, but the discussion should more explicitly state that this near-degeneracy is a prediction of this particular coupling scheme, not a robust model-independent result. A sentence clarifying that different hyperon couplings or different nucleonic EOSs could produce measurably different cold-star properties would help calibrate the strength of the observational conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract uses 'approximately 50 percent' for the radius contraction while the body and Table 3 give 48% (25.944 to 13.400 km). Please harmonize all percentages and use the same set of values in the abstract and main text.
  2. [Section 2.1, Eq. (3)] The chemical potential relation is written as µ_{B,l} = µ_n − q_i(µ_e − µ_{ν_e}). The subscript 'B,l' is ambiguous for baryons versus leptons; clarify which chemical potential applies to which species and define q_i.
  3. [Section 2.1, Eq. (5)] The Hamiltonian expression contains what appears to be a typo: 'ε_B \hat{N}_B + ε_B \hat{N}_B' should likely be ε_B \hat{N}_B + \bar{ε}_B \hat{\bar{N}}_B or similar. Please correct.
  4. [Figures 1–3] The figure text is garbled with LaTeX control sequences (e.g., '/s32', '/s77') in the submitted PDF. The authors should ensure the final figures render correctly, as the current form makes it impossible to read axis labels and legends.
  5. [Notation] The text uses both 'npH' and 'npeH' for hyperonic matter; pick one notation and define it consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the thermal structure predictions follow from an explicit RMF+TOV model with fixed coupling inputs, not from fitting the target pulsar's observables.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: build a finite-temperature RMF EOS with hyperons (Eqs. 1-12), solve the TOV equations (Eq. 13), and then compute the moment of inertia and gravitational redshift (Eqs. 15-19). The only fitted inputs are the GM1 nucleon coupling parameters, taken from prior fits to nuclear saturation properties, and hyperon-meson couplings obtained from SU(3)/SU(6) symmetry relations (Eqs. 20-21, Table 1). None of these inputs is adjusted to match PSR J1012+5307's mass, moment of inertia, or redshift; the pulsar enters only as a fixed mass interval (1.72-1.94 Msun) derived from the measured mass 1.83 +/- 0.11 Msun. Thus the thermal changes in radius, I, and z are genuine model predictions rather than re-statements of fitted quantities. The self-citations [35,43] are used for provenance of the coupling scheme and the GM1 parameter set, but the symmetry relations and coupling values are explicitly stated in the paper itself, so the argument does not reduce to an unverified self-citation chain. There is no imported 'uniqueness theorem' and no ansatz smuggled in solely by citation. The closing limitation statement ('subject to the limitations of the RMFT model and GM1 parameter set') acknowledges model dependence, but that is not circularity. Separately, the apparent sign error in Eq. (17) and the abstract/body numerical inconsistencies (e.g. 'nearly 26%' vs 'nearly two-thirds' I drop; '8 percent increase' vs '~10% drop' in I) are correctness and reproducibility concerns, not circular reductions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. Hyperons are known baryons. The ledger instead shows the model assumptions that carry the results: the GM1 EOS, the SU(3)/SU(6) coupling scheme, and the trapped-neutrino lepton fraction. None of these are fitted to PSR J1012+5307 in this paper.

free parameters (4)
  • GM1 nucleon-meson couplings and saturation properties = ρ0=0.153 fm^-3, K0=300 MeV, ε0=-16.3 MeV, a4=32.5 MeV, L=93.9 MeV, m*/m=0.70
    Taken from refs [42,43]; fitted to nuclear saturation data, not to PSR J1012+5307. Central to the EOS and therefore to all structural predictions.
  • SU(3)/SU(6) hyperon-meson coupling parameters = SU(3): θv=37.5°, z=0.1949; SU(6): θv≈35.26°, z=1/√6
    Chosen symmetry schemes determine gσΛ, gσΞ, gωΛ, etc. These are not constrained by the target pulsar and strongly affect the hyperonic EOS.
  • Lepton fraction Y_l = 0.4
    Fixed standard value for trapped-neutrino PNS matter shortly after birth; directly affects the thermal pressure and composition of the PNS EOS.
  • PNS temperatures = 20 and 30 MeV
    Representative temperatures chosen for the study; the quantitative results are specific to these values and would change for other thermal histories.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation: meson fields are replaced by their expectation values
    Standard RMF assumption invoked in §2.1, Eqs. (1)-(7). Neglects quantum fluctuations and is uncontrolled at the high densities of interest.
  • domain assumption Only the baryon octet plus electrons/neutrinos are active degrees of freedom
    The Lagrangian in Eq. (1) excludes delta resonances, quark matter, and other exotic states; the central hyperon claim assumes this is the right set.
  • domain assumption GM1 parameter set remains valid at supra-saturation density and for hyperons
    The paper acknowledges in §4 that results are 'subject to the limitations of the RMFT model and GM1 parameter set'. The cold hyperonic vs nucleonic indistinguishability depends on this extrapolation.
  • domain assumption SU(3) flavor and SU(6) spin-flavor symmetry relations fix hyperon couplings
    Eqs. (20)-(21) and Table 1. If these symmetry relations are wrong, the central thermal and cold-comparison results change.
  • domain assumption Trapped neutrinos with fixed lepton fraction Y_l=0.4 and charge neutrality
    Eq. (12) and surrounding text; determines the composition and thermal properties of PNS matter.
  • standard math TOV hydrostatic equilibrium and slow-rotation approximation for moment of inertia
    Eqs. (13)-(19); standard general-relativistic structure equations, appropriate for slowly rotating stars.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16327 in / 10553 out tokens · 112725 ms · 2026-08-02T10:02:27.958966+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The temperature dependence of neutron star structure significantly alters the equation of state, thereby affecting observable properties such as the moment of inertia and gravitational redshift. Utilizing the relativistic mean-field theory with hyperonic degrees of freedom under SU(3) flavor and SU(6) spin-flavor symmetries, we investigate the thermal effects on the structural properties of protoneutron stars and cold neutron stars. Focusing on PSR J1012+5307, we analyze the drastic structural transformations occurring during the transition from a PNS to a CNS. For a 1.94 Msun hyperonic star under SU(3) flavor symmetry, decreasing the temperature from T =30 MeV to 0 MeV induces a radius contraction of approximately 50 percent, accompanied by a drop in the moment of inertia by nearly 26% and a significant increase in gravitational redshift by approximately 154 percent. Furthermore, we examine the variations in the moment of inertia and gravitational redshift arising from mass uncertainties of PSR J1012+5307.Taking SU(3) flavor symmetry at T =20 MeV as an example, increasing the mass across the range 1.72 Msun to 1.94Msun results in a radius contraction of 2.749 km, an 8 percent increase in the moment of inertia, and a significant 40 percent increase in the gravitational redshift.We find that in the cold regime and at a fixed mass, the radius, moment of inertia,and gravitational redshift of hyperonic matter under SU(3) flavor symmetry differ only marginally from those of purely nucleonic matter, rendering it difficult to observationally confirm the presence of hyperons in the core of PSR J1012+5307. Moreover, future observations capable of precisely constraining pulsar masses,ideally through long-termonitoring from birth,hold the potential to determine more conclusively whether hyperons or other exotic matter reside in individual pulsars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26539 by N.An, Q.Yuan, W.B.Ding, X.L.Huang, Y.B.Wang, Y.F.Shen, Y.Xu, Z.Yu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: EOSs of PNSs and CNSs, and the corresponding mass-radius and mass-energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Moment of inertia of PNSs and CNSs. Panels (a)–(c) show the relations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Gravitational redshift of PNSs and CNSs. Panels (a)–(c) show the relations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

42 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Mezzacappa, A

    A. Mezzacappa, A. C. Calder, S. W. Bruenn, et al., ApJ, 495: 911(1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    Ferrari, L

    V. Ferrari, L. Gualtieri, J. A. Pons, et al., MNRAS, 350: 763(2004)

    2004

  3. [3]

    N. Rea, P. Esposito, R. Turolla, et al., Science, 330: 6006(2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    K.Lander, P

    S. K.Lander, P. Haensel, B. Haskell, et al., MNRAS, 503: 875(2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    Margalit, A

    B. Margalit, A. S. Jermyn, B. D. Metzger, et al., ApJ, 939: 51(2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Camelio, A

    G. Camelio, A. Lovato, L. Gualtieri, et al., Phys. Rev. D, 96: 043015(2017)

    2017

  7. [8]

    Shen, H.Toki, K.Oyamatsu, et al., Nucl

    H. Shen, H.Toki, K.Oyamatsu, et al., Nucl. Phys. A, 637: 435(1998)

    1998

  8. [9]

    J. A. Pons, S. Reddy, M. Prakash, et al., ApJ, 513: 780(1999)

    1999

  9. [10]

    Arcones, G

    A. Arcones, G. Martínez-Pinedo, E. O’Connor, et al., Phys. Rev. C, 78: 015806 (2008)

    2008

  10. [11]

    N. K. Glendenning, S. A. Moszkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett, 67: 2414(1991)

    1991

  11. [12]

    J. M. Lattimer, D. F. Swesty, Nucl. Phys. A, 535: 331(1991)

    1991

  12. [13]

    Prakash, I

    M. Prakash, I. Bombaci, M.Prakash, et al., Phys. Rep., 280: 1(1997)

    1997

  13. [14]

    N. K. Glendenning, booktitle: Compact stars : nuclear physics (2000)

    2000

  14. [15]

    Bednarek, R

    I. Bednarek, R. Manka, Phys. Rev. C, 73: 045804(2006) 13

    2006

  15. [16]

    Z. Yu, G. Z. Liu, M. F. Zhu, et al., Chin. Phys. Lett., 26: 022601(2009)

    2009

  16. [17]

    Z. Yu, G. Z. Liu, M. F. Zhu, et al., Chin. Phys. C, 33: 70(2009)

    2009

  17. [18]

    L. F. Roberts, G. Shen, V. Cirigliano, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett, 108: 061103(2012)

    2012

  18. [19]

    B. Hong, H. Y. Jia, X. L. Mu, et al., Chin. Phys. C, 40: 065101(2016)

    2016

  19. [20]

    B. Hong, Z. Z. Ren, Chin. Phys. C, 42: 084105(2018)

    2018

  20. [21]

    X. F. Zhao, B. Tang, Braz. J. Phys., 52: 149(2022)

    2022

  21. [22]

    X. F. Zhao, Z. H. Wu, Braz. J. Phys., 53: 8-A1(2022)

    2022

  22. [23]

    J. L. Huo, X. H. Wu, W. B. Ding, et al., Contrib. Astron. Obs. Skalnaté Pleso, 56: 35 (2026)

    2026

  23. [24]

    H. Y. Duan, A. Friedland, Gail C. McLaughlin, et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 38: 035201 (2011)

    2011

  24. [25]

    Camelio, L

    G. Camelio, L. Gualtieri, José A. Pons, et al., Phys. Rev. D, 94: 024008 (2016)

    2016

  25. [26]

    Pascal, J

    A. Pascal, J. Novak, M. Oertel, et al., MNRAS, 511: 356(2022)

    2022

  26. [27]

    Ekși, MNRAS, 546: stag051(2026)

    İrem Bakır, Kazım Y. Ekși, MNRAS, 546: stag051(2026)

    2026

  27. [28]

    Müller, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.24243, (2026)

    B. Müller, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.24243, (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [29]

    Antoniadis, T

    J. Antoniadis, T. M. Tauris, F. Ozel, et al., aXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.01665, (2016)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [30]

    Mata Sánchez, A

    D. Mata Sánchez, A. G. Istrate, M. H. van Kerkwijk, et al., MNRAS, 494: 4031(2020) 14

    2020

  30. [31]

    N. Wei, K. Xu, Z. F. Gao, et al., ApJ, 962: 54(2024)

    2024

  31. [32]

    Z. Yu, W. B. Ding, Commun. Theor. Phys., 55: 643 (2011)

    2011

  32. [33]

    C. J. Batty, E. Friedman, A. Gal, Phys. Lett. B, 335: 273 (1994)

    1994

  33. [34]

    Bednarek, R

    I. Bednarek, R. Manka, J. Phys. G Nucl. Phys., 31: 1009 (2005)

    2005

  34. [35]

    Y. Xu, Y. F. Shen, Q. Yuan, et al., Chin. Phys. C, 50: 034108 (2026)

    2026

  35. [36]

    R. C. Tolman, PhRv, 55: 364 (1939)

    1939

  36. [37]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, PhRv, 55: 374 (1939)

    1939

  37. [38]

    S. Y. Zhao, C. Z. Liu, X. L. Huang, et al., Acta Phys. Sin., 70: 222601 (2021)

    2021

  38. [39]

    X. F. Zhao, Pramana J. Phys., 97: 209 (2023)

    2023

  39. [40]

    N. K. Glendenning, 1997 Compact Stars: Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics, and General Relativity (New York: Springer-Verlag) pp75−78

    1997

  40. [41]

    D. L. Benjamin, N. Mohit, and J. O. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. D, 73: 024021 (2006)

    2006

  41. [42]

    Miyatsu, M

    T. Miyatsu, M. K. Cheoun, K. Saito, Phys. Rev. C, 88: 015802 (2013)

    2013

  42. [43]

    Xu, B.Diao,Y

    Y. Xu, B.Diao,Y. B. Wang, et al., Res. Astron. Astrophys., 23: 055016 (2023) 15

    2023