Astrophysical Constraints on Hadron--Quark Crossover in Hybrid Neutron Stars

G\'abor L\'aszl\'o Kasza; Gy\"orgy Wolf

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Astrophysical Constraints on Hadron--Quark Crossover in Hybrid Neutron Stars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Current neutron-star observations leave room for only one hybrid hadron-quark equation of state, and it favors a broad mixed transition region over pure quark cores.

desk verdict A careful Bayesian constraint analysis of hybrid NS EoSs whose headline — only GMSR(BSK16) survives — is true only under a specific data substitution and a hard M_TOV cut, both disclosed but load-bearing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10259 v1 pith:HZY46LHC submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.HE

Gábor László Kasza , György Wolf This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords hybridneutronstarshadron-quarkcrossoverextendedlinearsigmamodelequationofstateNICERGW170817tidaldeformabilitypurequarkcores

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether current neutron-star observations can distinguish between competing pictures of how quark matter appears inside neutron stars. The authors build hybrid equations of state by joining an extended linear $\sigma$ model description of quark matter to four different hadronic models through a smooth hadron-quark crossover, then demand thermodynamic stability, causality, a match to perturbative QCD at high density, the tidal-deformability bound $\tilde{\Lambda}<720$, and maximum-mass thresholds. After these cuts, only the eLSM+GMSR(BSK16) construction survives, and a Bayesian weighting with the NICER mass-radius posteriors and the GW170817 posterior selects a broad crossover at high baryon density. The favored maximum-mass star has $M_{\mathrm{TOV}}=2.349\,M_\odot$ and $R_{\mathrm{TOV}}=10.826$ km, with a mixed hadron-quark region already present at $M_{\mathrm{tr}}=2.142\,M_\odot$ rather than a pure quark core.

What carries the argument

The central object is the smooth hadron-quark crossover built from a fifth-order polynomial interpolation of the energy density, $\varepsilon(\rho)=\sum_{i=0}^5 a_i \rho^i$, between the lower boundary $\rho_L=\bar{\rho}-\Gamma$ and the upper boundary $\rho_U=\bar{\rho}+\Gamma$. The polynomial coefficients are fixed by requiring the energy density, pressure, and sound speed to be continuous at both boundaries; pressure is then obtained from $p=\rho\,\partial\varepsilon/\partial\rho-\varepsilon$, so every interpolated equation of state is thermodynamically consistent and can be checked for stability and causality. The three free parameters (the quark vector coupling $g_V$, the central transition density $\bar{\rho}$, and the crossover half-width $\Gamma$) span 7072 parameterizations, of which the prior keeps only those that also admit a stable, causal matching to perturbative QCD at asymptotically high densities.

What would settle it

Repeat the whole scan with the original NICER posterior for PSR J1231-1411 in place of the adopted reanalysis; if any DD2, DNS(CMF), or SFHo hybrid then passes all hard constraints, or if the maximum-mass posterior again shows finite pure quark cores, the uniqueness claim fails. A confirmed stable neutron star with $M>2.35\,M_\odot$ would also break the favored maximum-mass prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the combination of current NICER mass-radius measurements, the GW170817 tidal-deformability posterior, and theoretical consistency requirements is selective enough to single out one hybrid construction: eLSM+GMSR(BSK16). Within that construction, the posterior peaks at vector coupling $g_V=5.0$, transition half-width $\Gamma=3.6\,\rho_0$, and central transition density $\bar{\rho}=5.8\,\rho_0$. The highest-posterior maximum-mass configuration contains no pure quark core ($M_Q=0$, $R_Q=0$); instead a hadron-quark crossover region sets in at $M_{\mathrm{tr}}=2.142\,M_\odot$, and the star reaches $M_{\mathrm{TOV}}=2.349\,M_\odot$ with radius $R_{\mathrm{TOV}}=10.826$ km. The paper also claims that the inferred maximum-mass posterior makes a neutron-star interpretation of the GW190814 secondary object unlikely.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reanalysis of PSR J1231-1411 with the smaller radius is the right one, and that a single published version of each hadronic model fairly represents that model; if either choice is wrong, the conclusion that only GMSR(BSK16) survives could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The paper concludes that among the four hadronic models considered, only GMSR(BSK16) can be paired with the eLSM quark matter description while satisfying all imposed theoretical and astrophysical constraints.
The inferred maximum-mass posterior is dominated by the NICER data: adding the GW170817 likelihood leaves the NICER-only posterior nearly unchanged, while GW170817 alone would favor lower maximum masses.
The absence of extended pure quark cores is driven mainly by the maximum-mass threshold rather than by the tidal-deformability bound, and the surviving parameterizations instead contain an extended mixed transition region.
The posterior maximum is robust to the choice between the $M_{\mathrm{TOV}}>2.04\,M_\odot$ and $M_{\mathrm{TOV}}>2.27\,M_\odot$ thresholds, with the most probable parameterization identical under both.
Within this model and data set, only a very small fraction of the maximum-mass posterior reaches the mass of the GW190814 secondary, so its neutron-star interpretation is strongly disfavored.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural next test is to repeat the scan with several parameterizations of each hadronic model rather than one published version; that would show whether the failure of DD2, DNS(CMF), and SFHo is intrinsic to those frameworks or an artifact of the chosen parameter sets.
The paper's favored picture implies a testable prediction: a future radius measurement of a pulsar near $2\,M_\odot$ clearly above the predicted compact radius (around $10.8$ km for the maximum mass) would disfavor this construction, as would a confirmed stable neutron star above about $2.35\,M_\odot$.
If the smaller-radius reanalysis of PSR J1231-1411 is confirmed, the mixed crossover region acts as a stiffening mechanism, so future NICER or gravitational-wave measurements of high-mass stars could be used to locate the transition density and width more precisely.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here is the short version. This is a competent Bayesian analysis of hybrid neutron-star EoSs with a smooth hadron–quark crossover. The new piece is a comparison across four hadronic models, using the latest NICER posteriors including the Qi et al. reanalysis of J1231-1411, and a careful treatment of the maximum-mass posterior without imposing a lower cut. The headline result—only eLSM+GMSR(BSK16) survives all constraints—holds within the stated assumptions, but those assumptions include a data substitution and a hard M_TOV cut that do more work than the abstract lets on.

What the paper does well: it uses full published posteriors rather than summary statistics; it is transparent about which cuts are applied and why; it explicitly checks the effect of the M_TOV lower bound on the quark-core conclusion and reports that without that bound finite quark cores remain possible; and it openly notes that only one CompOSE parameterization per hadronic model was tested, so excluding DD2 or DNS(CMF) is about those tables, not the model classes. The pipeline from eLSM + crossover to TOV to posterior weighting is standard and the numbers are plausible. The citation pattern is clean; the authors build on their own earlier work on the eLSM crossover construction, which is appropriate.

The soft spots are three. First, the choice to replace the original Salmi et al. posterior for PSR J1231-1411 with the Qi et al. reanalysis is load-bearing. The authors say the original was hard to reconcile with the other pulsars, but that is precisely a reason to be cautious: dropping an inconvenient measurement before fitting can bias the 'only' claim. If the original posterior is correct, the simultaneous five-pulsar fit and the model ranking may change. The paper is upfront about the substitution, but it remains a strong prior choice rather than a derived result.

Second, the disfavoring of pure quark cores is cut-driven. Figure 7 shows that pQCD plus GW170817 and NICER weighting still allows finite cores; they disappear only when M_TOV > 2.04 M_sun is imposed. The paper says this explicitly, so it is not hidden, but the abstract's 'strongly disfavored' reads too strongly if the cut is doing the work.

Third, the single-parameterization-per-model limitation is acknowledged, but it means the conclusion about GMSR(BSK16) should be phrased as 'the surviving parameterization table', not 'the only physically viable construction'.

Overall: the analysis is careful and the limitations are mostly disclosed. The central argument is not circular in a damning way, but the headline is conditional on data and model choices that a referee should probe. This paper deserves peer review, and I would send it out with a request to soften the 'only' language and to test sensitivity to the J1231-1411 posterior. The right audience is people working on hybrid star EoSs and Bayesian inference with NICER/GW data; they will get a solid, honest example of how to handle posteriors and hard cuts.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs hybrid neutron-star equations of state by joining an extended linear sigma model (eLSM) description of quark matter to four hadronic EoSs (SFHo, DD2, DNS(CMF), GMSR(BSK16)) through a smooth hadron-quark crossover controlled by three free parameters: the vector coupling g_V, the central transition density rho_bar, and the crossover width Gamma. A scan of 7072 parameterizations is first filtered by stability, causality, and a pQCD matching condition, then by hard astrophysical cuts (Lambda_tilde < 720, M_TOV > 2.04 or 2.27 M_sun), and finally weighted by the full published NICER and GW170817 posteriors in a Bayesian likelihood. The central claims are that only eLSM+GMSR(BSK16) survives all constraints, that the posterior favors a broad crossover at high density, that extended pure quark cores are strongly disfavored, and that the GW190814 secondary is unlikely to be a neutron star. The paper is careful in places, notably by avoiding a lower-bound cut when computing the M_TOV posterior, but the uniqueness claim and the quark-core conclusion rest on a small number of external data/model choices that are not fully stress-tested.

Significance. If correct, this would be a useful step in narrowing the allowed hybrid-star EoS landscape: it identifies a specific hadronic model (GMSR(BSK16)) as the only tested construction compatible with current NICER and GW170817 data, and it provides a concrete prediction for the maximum-mass configuration (M_TOV = 2.349 M_sun, R_TOV = 10.826 km) and for the onset of the mixed hadron-quark region. The paper also gives credit for using full published posteriors rather than compressed credible intervals, for explicitly avoiding circular reasoning in the M_TOV posterior (Sec. V B), and for openly acknowledging that the absence of pure quark cores is driven by the M_TOV > 2.04 M_sun cut (Sec. V C and Fig. 7). These features make the analysis more transparent than many EoS-population studies. The robustness of the headline conclusions, however, is not yet demonstrated at the level required for a journal claim of exclusivity.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II, Eq. (11), Sec. V A] The replacement of the published NICER posterior of PSR J1231-1411 [20] with the reanalysis by Qi et al. [40] is load-bearing for the claim that only eLSM+GMSR(BSK16) survives and for the favored crossover parameters. The paper justifies this substitution by the difficulty of reconciling [20] with the other NICER pulsars, but it does not test how the model ranking or the posterior changes if the original Salmi et al. posterior is used instead. I request a robustness analysis with the original posterior, or a joint treatment treating the choice of posterior as a systematic uncertainty. Without this, the abstract's 'only' claim is contingent on an external, partly post-hoc data selection.
[Sec. IV A, Sec. V C, Fig. 7] The hard cut M_TOV > 2.04 M_sun is imposed in the same Bayesian analysis that includes the NICER posterior of PSR J0740+6620, the pulsar from which the 2.04 M_sun 1-sigma lower limit is derived. This double-counts the same observational information: the cutoff is applied as a hard prior while the same pulsar's mass-radius posterior also enters the likelihood in Eq. (11). Since Fig. 7 shows that the disappearance of finite pure quark cores occurs only when this cut is imposed, the central conclusion that pure quark cores are strongly disfavored is in part an artifact of double-counting. Please either remove the hard cut and rely on the likelihood alone, or exclude PSR J0740+6620 from the NICER product when the cut is applied, and then re-examine the pure-quark-core conclusion.
[Sec. IV A, Table I, Abstract] The exclusion of DD2 and DNS(CMF) is based on a single CompOSE parameterization per hadronic model, as the authors acknowledge in Sec. IV A. However, the abstract and conclusions state 'only the eLSM+GMSR(BSK16) construction remains fully consistent' without this caveat. This is an overstatement: the analysis establishes tension for the particular tables tested, not for the model classes. I recommend either scanning multiple parameterizations of each hadronic framework or revising the abstract and conclusions to state explicitly that the uniqueness claim applies to the tested parameterizations only.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'the L VC posterior' should read 'the LVC posterior' (LIGO-Virgo Collaboration).
[Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 7 panel labels] The panel labels use colons in place of subscripts (e.g., 'MTOV>2:04M-'), making them hard to read; please format as proper subscripts.
[Sec. IV A] The grid spacing and the number of points per parameter dimension are not stated; please provide the grid resolution so that the 7072 parameterizations can be reproduced exactly.
[Sec. IV A and Ref. [35]] The pQCD matching condition is described only by reference to previous work; to make the paper self-contained, I suggest adding the matching equations (e.g., the continuity conditions imposed on pressure, baryon density, and chemical potential) in an appendix.
[References] Reference [5] is missing the publication year; other entries would benefit from a final consistency check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's parameter scan, hard cuts, and Bayesian likelihood are external-data-driven, and acknowledged data/model choices are limitations rather than self-referential reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward parameter scan: the free parameters (g_V, Gamma, rho_bar) define a family of hybrid EoSs, theoretical priors (stability, causality, pQCD matching) filter them, and the NICER and GW170817 likelihoods weight the survivors. The favored crossover parameters and the maximum-posterior configuration (M_TOV = 2.349 Msun, R_TOV = 10.826 km) are posterior outputs, not inputs that are later renamed as predictions. The 'only GMSR(BSK16) survives' claim follows from applying external hard cuts (M_TOV > 2.04 Msun, Lambda_tilde < 720) to four specific CompOSE parameterizations; the paper explicitly acknowledges that only one parameterization per hadronic model was used and that this does not establish whether the tension is with the framework or the parameterization (Sec. IV A). The disfavoring of pure quark cores is openly attributed to the M_TOV > 2.04 Msun hard cut (Sec. V C and Fig. 7), and the paper explicitly avoids imposing an M_TOV lower bound when inferring the M_TOV posterior in Sec. V B 'in order to avoid circular reasoning.' The substitution of the Qi et al. reanalysis for the original PSR J1231-1411 posterior is a data-selection choice disclosed in Sec. II; it is externally sourced, not an internal equation, and cannot reduce to an input by construction. Self-citations to prior eLSM and pQCD-matching work are methodological and rest on independent hadron phenomenology and pQCD calculations, not on the present astrophysical target. No quoted equation or fitted parameter is shown to be equivalent by definition to a claimed prediction, so the paper is not circular, though its external-data and model-selection choices carry correctness risk.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All physical inputs come from prior published models. The paper contributes a constraint analysis rather than new fundamental physics. Three parameters are tuned to astrophysical data in the Bayesian scan: g_V, rho_bar, and Gamma. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced, so no invented entities are listed.

free parameters (3)

g_V = 5.0 (maximum posterior grid point)
Vector coupling strength of the quark model; not constrained by the vacuum fit and treated as free in the Bayesian analysis, scanned in [0,8].
rho_bar = 5.8 rho_0 (maximum posterior grid point)
Central hadron-quark transition density; scanned in [2,7] rho_0 and constrained by astrophysical data.
Gamma = 3.6 rho_0 (maximum posterior grid point)
Crossover half-width; scanned in [1,4] rho_0 and constrained by astrophysical data.

assumptions (6)

standard math TOV equations govern nonrotating neutron star structure
Used in Sec. V to compute mass-radius relations from the hybrid EoSs.
domain assumption eLSM mean-field quark matter EoS is a valid high-density description
Central to Sec. III A; adopted from refs. [44,45] without independent validation at neutron star densities.
domain assumption A fifth-order polynomial interpolation of energy density provides a thermodynamically consistent crossover
Introduced in Sec. III C; the actual QCD crossover mechanism is unknown, and this construction is a modeling choice.
domain assumption The single CompOSE parameterization of each hadronic model represents that model's predictions
Sec. IV A; the paper itself notes the analysis cannot distinguish framework failure from parameterization failure.
domain assumption The adopted NICER and GW170817 posteriors, including the Qi et al. reanalysis of PSR J1231-1411, are accurate
Sec. II; the choice of reanalysis over the original NICER result is load-bearing.
domain assumption A stable causal matching to perturbative QCD at high densities is a valid prior requirement
Sec. IV A; follows refs. [34,35] and is imposed before Bayesian weighting.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Astrophysical Constraints on Hadron--Quark Crossover in Hybrid Neutron Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HZY46LHC

@misc{pith2026260810259,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Astrophysical Constraints on Hadron--Quark Crossover in Hybrid Neutron Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HZY46LHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10259}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate astrophysical constraints on hybrid neutron-star equations of state constructed by combining an extended linear sigma model description of quark matter with several representative hadronic equations of state through a smooth hadron--quark crossover. Four different hadronic models are examined in order to explore the model dependence of the resulting hybrid equations of state. After imposing stability, causality, perturbative QCD matching, tidal deformability, and maximum-mass constraints, only the eLSM+GMSR(BSK16) construction remains fully consistent with current astrophysical observations. The surviving parameterizations are further constrained using Bayesian inference based on NICER mass--radius measurements and the GW170817 gravitational-wave event. The posterior distributions favor a broad hadron--quark crossover occurring at relatively high baryon densities, while the formation of extended pure quark cores is strongly disfavored. Instead, the current observations favor neutron stars containing an extended mixed hadron--quark transition region. We also investigate the implications of the inferred maximum-mass distribution for the secondary object of GW190814 and find that, within the present model and adopted observational constraints, its interpretation as a neutron star is unlikely.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10259 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5. Posterior-weighted normalized theoretical density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Posterior probability density of the maximum NS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Posterior-weighted normalized theoretical density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[20]

Salmiet al., Astrophys

T. Salmiet al., Astrophys. J.976, 58 (2024), arXiv:2409.14923 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2024
[40]

Qiet al., Astrophys

L. Qiet al., Astrophys. J.981, 99 (2025), arXiv:2502.09147 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2025
[1]

ALICE Overview

A. Grelli (ALICE), EPJ Web Conf.171, 01005 (2018), arXiv:1711.03369 [hep-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[2]

Overview of latest results from PHENIX

T. Sakaguchi (PHENIX), PoSHardProbes2018, 035 (2019), arXiv:1901.01951 [nucl-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[3]

Aparin (STAR), Phys

A. Aparin (STAR), Phys. Atom. Nucl.86, 758 (2023)

work page 2023
[4]

Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, Nature443, 675 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0611014

arXiv 2006
[5]

Borsanyi, G

S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, A. Jakovac, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo, JHEP11, 077, arXiv:1007.2580 [hep-lat]

arXiv
[6]

Borsanyi, Z

S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B730, 99 (2014), arXiv:1309.5258 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2014

Show all 57 references

[7]

Gorda, O

T. Gorda, O. Komoltsev, and A. Kurkela, Astrophys. J. 950, 107 (2023), arXiv:2204.11877 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[8]

M. A. Stephanov, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.153, 139 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402115

2004 arXiv
[9]

de Forcrand, PoSLA T2009, 010 (2009), arXiv:1005.0539 [hep-lat]

P. de Forcrand, PoSLA T2009, 010 (2009), arXiv:1005.0539 [hep-lat]

2009 arXiv
[10]

Nagata, Prog

K. Nagata, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.127, 103991 (2022), arXiv:2108.12423 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[11]

G. F. Burgio, H. J. Schulze, I. Vidana, and J. B. Wei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.120, 103879 (2021), arXiv:2105.03747 [nucl-th]

2021 arXiv
[12]

Logoteta, Universe7, 408 (2021)

D. Logoteta, Universe7, 408 (2021)

2021
[13]

Vida˜ na, Universe7, 376 (2021)

I. Vida˜ na, Universe7, 376 (2021)

2021
[14]

Masuda, T

K. Masuda, T. Hatsuda, and T. Takatsuka, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 65 (2016), arXiv:1508.04861 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[15]

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]

2018 arXiv
[16]

Vinciguerraet al., Astrophys

S. Vinciguerraet al., Astrophys. J.961, 62 (2024), arXiv:2308.09469 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[17]

Salmiet al., Astrophys

T. Salmiet al., Astrophys. J.974, 294 (2024), arXiv:2406.14466 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[18]

Mauviardet al., Astrophys

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

2025
[19]

Choudhuryet al., Astrophys

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

2024 arXiv
[21]

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

2017 arXiv
[22]

B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X9, 011001 (2019), arXiv:1805.11579 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[23]

Demorest, T

P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, and J. Hessels, Nature467, 1081 (2010), arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]

2010 arXiv
[24]

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

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

2013 arXiv
[25]

H. T. Cromartieet al.(NANOGrav), Nature Astron.4, 72 (2019), arXiv:1904.06759 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[26]

R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L18 (2022), arXiv:2207.05124 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[27]

R. W. Romani, M. Beleznay, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, Astrophys. J.996, 101 (2026), arXiv:2512.05099 [astro-ph.HE]

2026
[28]

Fan, M.-Z

Y.-Z. Fan, M.-Z. Han, J.-L. Jiang, D.-S. Shao, and S.-P. Tang, Phys. Rev. D109, 043052 (2024), arXiv:2309.12644 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[29]

Gorda, A

T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, S. S¨ appi, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 202701 (2018), arXiv:1807.04120 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[30]

Gorda, A

T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, R. Paatelainen, S. S¨ appi, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. D104, 074015 (2021), arXiv:2103.07427 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[31]

Gorda, R

T. Gorda, R. Paatelainen, S. S¨ appi, and K. Sepp¨ anen, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 181902 (2023), arXiv:2307.08734 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[32]

Tak´ atsy, P

J. Tak´ atsy, P. Kov´ acs, Z. Sz´ ep, and G. Wolf, Universe5, 174 (2019), arXiv:1907.05841 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[33]

Kov´ acs, J

P. Kov´ acs, J. Tak´ atsy, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and G. Wolf, Phys. Rev. D105, 103014 (2022), arXiv:2111.06127 13 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[34]

Takatsy, P

J. Takatsy, P. Kovacs, G. Wolf, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D108, 043002 (2023), arXiv:2303.00013 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[35]

Kasza, J

G. Kasza, J. Tak´ atsy, and G. Wolf, Eur. Phys. J. ST 10.1140/epjs/s11734-026-02286-y (2025), arXiv:2512.19907 [astro-ph.HE]

2025 arXiv
[36]

Kasza and G

G. Kasza and G. Wolf, J. Subatomic Part. Cosmol.5, 100400 (2026), arXiv:2605.00437 [astro-ph.HE]

2026 arXiv
[37]

Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys

R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett.896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[38]

Biswas, R

B. Biswas, R. Nandi, P. Char, S. Bose, and N. Ster- gioulas, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.505, 1600 (2021), arXiv:2010.02090 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[39]

Mali and R

U. Mali and R. Essick, Phys. Rev. D113, 083013 (2026), arXiv:2511.19393 [astro-ph.HE]

2026
[41]

Marczenko, D

M. Marczenko, D. Blaschke, K. Redlich, and C. Sasaki, Astron. Astrophys.643, A82 (2020), arXiv:2004.09566 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[42]

Clevinger, J

A. Clevinger, J. Corkish, K. Aryal, and V. Dexheimer, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 96 (2022), arXiv:2205.00559 [astro- ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[43]

Y. Yang, C. Wu, and J.-F. Yang, Phys. Rev. D109, 063008 (2024), arXiv:2312.08758 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[44]

Parganlija, P

D. Parganlija, P. Kovacs, G. Wolf, F. Giacosa, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D87, 014011 (2013), arXiv:1208.0585 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[45]

Kov´ acs, Z

P. Kov´ acs, Z. Sz´ ep, and G. Wolf, Phys. Rev. D93, 114014 (2016), arXiv:1601.05291 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[46]

Kov´ acs and G

P. Kov´ acs and G. Wolf, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp.10, 1107 (2017), arXiv:1711.10859 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[47]

Hempel and J

M. Hempel and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A837, 210 (2010), arXiv:0911.4073 [nucl-th]

2010 arXiv
[48]

A. W. Steiner, M. Hempel, and T. Fischer, Astrophys. J. 774, 17 (2013), arXiv:1207.2184 [astro-ph.SR]

2013 arXiv
[49]

Douchin and P

F. Douchin and P. Haensel, Astron. Astrophys.380, 151 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0111092

2001 arXiv
[50]

Typel, G

S. Typel, G. Ropke, T. Klahn, D. Blaschke, and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C81, 015803 (2010), arXiv:0908.2344 [nucl-th]

2010 arXiv
[51]

Dexheimer and S

V. Dexheimer and S. Schramm, Astrophys. J.683, 943 (2008), arXiv:0802.1999 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[52]

Sch¨ urhoff, S

T. Sch¨ urhoff, S. Schramm, and V. Dexheimer, Astrophys. J. Lett.724, L74 (2010), arXiv:1008.0957 [astro-ph.SR]

2010 arXiv
[53]

Grams, J

G. Grams, J. Margueron, R. Somasundaram, and S. Reddy, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 56 (2022), arXiv:2203.11645 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[54]

B. Sun, T. Zhao, and J. M. Lattimer, (2026), arXiv:2601.04294 [astro-ph.HE]

2026
[55]

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]

2020 arXiv
[56]

Ferreira, R

M. Ferreira, R. Cˆ amara Pereira, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D101, 123030 (2020), arXiv:2005.10543 [nucl-th]

2020 arXiv
[57]

G. Baym, S. Furusawa, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, and H. To- gashi, Astrophys. J.885, 42 (2019), arXiv:1903.08963 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [20]

Salmiet al., Astrophys

T. Salmiet al., Astrophys. J.976, 58 (2024), arXiv:2409.14923 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2024

[2] [40]

Qiet al., Astrophys

L. Qiet al., Astrophys. J.981, 99 (2025), arXiv:2502.09147 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2025

[3] [1]

ALICE Overview

A. Grelli (ALICE), EPJ Web Conf.171, 01005 (2018), arXiv:1711.03369 [hep-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[4] [2]

Overview of latest results from PHENIX

T. Sakaguchi (PHENIX), PoSHardProbes2018, 035 (2019), arXiv:1901.01951 [nucl-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[5] [3]

Aparin (STAR), Phys

A. Aparin (STAR), Phys. Atom. Nucl.86, 758 (2023)

work page 2023

[6] [4]

Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, Nature443, 675 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0611014

arXiv 2006

[7] [5]

Borsanyi, G

S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, A. Jakovac, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo, JHEP11, 077, arXiv:1007.2580 [hep-lat]

arXiv

[8] [6]

Borsanyi, Z

S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B730, 99 (2014), arXiv:1309.5258 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2014