Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 82 references

Differential rotation can lift hyperonic neutron stars into the GW190814 mass range, but not enough for PSR J0740+6620 at 346 Hz.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 00:46 UTC pith:GKMKB6NB

load-bearing objection Solid KEH/CST sequences show differential rotation can push a soft hyperonic EoS into the GW190814 mass range, but the same EoS still fails at 346 Hz and the high-mass models rest on approximate stability criteria. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09040 v1 pith:GKMKB6NB submitted 2026-07-10 astro-ph.HE gr-qcnucl-th

Effects of Differential Rotation on the Maximum Mass of Neutron Stars

Hyukjin Kwon , Jinho Kim , Kazuyuki Sekizawa This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE gr-qcnucl-th
keywords neutron starsdifferential rotationhyperon puzzlemaximum massGW190814PSR J0740+6620relativistic mean-fieldquasi-toroidal stars
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.

Neutron-star maximum mass is a hard test of dense-matter physics. Soft equations of state that include hyperons often fail that test, even when they barely reach two solar masses without rotation. This paper asks whether differential rotation—faster spinning in the core than at the surface—can restore enough support. Using equilibrium models built with a relativistic mean-field equation of state that includes the full baryon octet under SU(6) couplings, the authors show that differential rotation can raise the maximum mass enough to produce stable-looking configurations inside the 2.50–2.67 solar-mass window of GW190814. The same soft hyperonic equation of state still cannot support the observed mass of PSR J0740+6620 when the surface spin is fixed at its measured 346 Hz. The work also maps the internal density and composition profiles that appear under strong differential rotation, including off-center density peaks and quasi-toroidal shapes that can host a ring of hyperons around a nuclear core. The result reframes the hyperon puzzle as partly a question of rotational support rather than equation-of-state stiffness alone.

Core claim

Differential rotation substantially raises the maximum gravitational mass of neutron stars constructed with a hyperonic equation of state (FSUGarnet plus SU(6) couplings). Equilibrium sequences reach the 2.50–2.67 solar-mass interval associated with the secondary of GW190814, while the same soft equation of state still fails to support the mass of PSR J0740+6620 when the equatorial spin is held at the observed 346 Hz. Extreme differential rotation further produces quasi-toroidal configurations that can populate the entire baryon octet off-center.

What carries the argument

The Cook–Shapiro–Teukolsky (CST) reformulation of the KEH integral scheme, together with the j-constant differential-rotation law j(Ω)=A²(Ωc−Ω). The compactified radial coordinate and the continuation method in axis ratio allow construction of highly deformed, differentially rotating equilibria whose global mass, spin, and internal composition can be compared directly to the observational mass windows.

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats the turning point where mass stops rising with central density as a proxy for the stability limit of differentially rotating stars, even though that criterion is rigorously proven only for static and uniformly rotating configurations.

What would settle it

A full general-relativistic hydrodynamics evolution of the reported high-β or quasi-toroidal hyperonic models that either collapses them promptly or keeps them intact on a dynamical timescale would settle whether the claimed mass-supporting equilibria are actually stable.

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

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs equilibrium sequences of differentially rotating neutron stars with the Cook–Shapiro–Teukolsky (CST) reformulation of the KEH method, using the FSUGarnet RMF EoS and its hyperonic extension under SU(6) couplings. The central claim is that differential rotation substantially raises the maximum mass relative to static or uniformly rotating models, producing hyperonic equilibria in the 2.50–2.67 M⊙ range associated with GW 190814, while the same soft hyperonic EoS still cannot support the mass of PSR J0740+6620 at the observed 346 Hz equatorial frequency. The work also maps internal density and composition structure (including off-center density maxima and sequential hyperon appearance), reports quasi-toroidal configurations, and shows extreme models in which the full baryon octet appears.

Significance. If the equilibrium results hold, the paper supplies a concrete, observationally framed assessment of how much differential rotation can (and cannot) relieve the hyperon puzzle for a standard soft hyperonic EoS. The negative result for PSR J0740+6620 at 346 Hz is as useful as the positive GW 190814 finding. Strengths include grid-convergence tests (Table III), validation against Stergioulas & Friedman and Morrison et al., a continuation method for highly deformed models, and a systematic internal-structure analysis that goes beyond global M–R sequences. The planned AthenaK evolutions are a natural and well-motivated next step. The work is a solid contribution to the literature on hypermassive and differentially rotating neutron stars with realistic hyperonic matter.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV B 1–2; abstract] Sec. IV B 1–2 and the GW 190814 claim: The paper adopts ∂M/∂ρc = 0 as an approximate stability limit and declares NS-I/II/III dynamically stable because β ≲ 0.24 (citing Shibata et al. for different models). Both criteria are only approximate for differentially rotating, hyperon-softened stars; no time-dependent evolutions are performed for FSUGarnet or FSUGarnet+SU(6). The abstract and Sec. IV B 2 should state more explicitly that the reported 2.5–2.67 M⊙ consistency is an existence result for equilibria, with dynamical stability unproven for these EoSs and rotation laws, especially for the higher-β and quasi-toroidal models (β up to ~0.29).
  2. [Sec. IV B 2; Fig. 7] Fig. 7 and the Biswas et al. spin band: The horizontal 90% interval f = 1170^{+389}_{-495} Hz is taken from an analysis that assumes uniform rotation. Overlaying it on Â^{-1} = 1 sequences without quantifying how differential rotation would shift the inferred spin prior weakens the comparison. Either restrict the band to the Â^{-1} = 0 sequences or add a short discussion of how the constraint should be reinterpreted for differential rotation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1–2] Fig. 1 caption refers to onset densities that are only fully listed in the Fig. 2 caption; cross-reference or move the full list into Fig. 1 for readability.
  2. [Sec. II C 2; Sec. IV] Notation for the differential-rotation parameter switches between A, Â, and Â^{-1}; a single consistent symbol (and a brief reminder that Â^{-1} → 0 is uniform rotation) would help.
  3. [Sec. IV B 1; Fig. 6] The hot-spot colatitude discussion around Fig. 6 is appropriately cautious but could note more clearly that the large Θ uncertainties prevent any quantitative revision of the 346 Hz mass limit.
  4. [Sec. II A; Fig. 10] In Sec. II A, the statement that the effective mass becomes zero/negative above ~2.5 fm^{-3} is important; consider flagging this cutoff also in the extreme high-density configuration of Fig. 10 so readers know the EoS domain of validity.
  5. [Sec. II–III headings; Sec. II C 1] Minor typographical issues: “FORMULA TION” → “FORMULATION”; “COMPUTA TIONAL” → “COMPUTATIONAL”; “V olkoff” → “Volkoff” in the TOV discussion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: mass sequences and max-mass claims follow from solving the Einstein+hydrostatic equations for a fixed literature EoS and rotation law; minor self-citation of prior uniform-rotation work is not load-bearing.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. I (Introduction) and Sec. III (Computational Details)]
    "Kwon and Sekizawa investigated whether the spin frequency of PSR J0740+6620 can affect the maximum mass using the KEH method, finding only a marginal increase due to rigid rotation [29]. ... As a code validation, our results for uniformly rotating configurations are compared against those of Stergioulas & Friedman [31] and show good agreement, while results for differentially rotating configurations are found to be in good agreement with those of Morrison et al. [35]."

    The authors cite their own prior uniform-rotation KEH study [29] for the baseline claim that rigid rotation yields only a marginal mass increase. This is not load-bearing for the new differential-rotation sequences or the hyperonic max-mass results (which are independently computed), but it is a self-citation that supplies the contrast motivating the present work; hence a minor, non-central circularity flag only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The RMF EoS (FSUGarnet nucleonic sector + SU(6) hyperon couplings fixed by literature potential depths U_Y and the Nagara event) is independent of the target masses; particle fractions, sound speed, and static M-R curves are computed from the mean-field equations and beta-equilibrium conditions without fitting to PSR J0740+6620 or GW190814. Differentially rotating equilibria are obtained by the standard CST reformulation of the KEH integral equations with the j-constant rotation law, using a continuation method for convergence; global quantities (M, R_e, f_e, beta, J, T) are volume integrals over the resulting metric and matter fields. The reported mass increase and the existence of 2.5-2.67 M_sun configurations are therefore numerical solutions of the field equations, not forced by construction from a fitted parameter or a self-referential definition. The sole self-citations ([29] for uniform-rotation marginal effect; code checks against external Stergioulas/Friedman and Morrison et al.) supply motivation and validation but do not underwrite the differential-rotation sequences or the hyperonic max-mass claims. Stability arguments invoke an approximate turning-point criterion and an external beta threshold from Shibata et al.; these are acknowledged limitations of the analysis, not circular reductions of the mass results themselves. No uniqueness theorem, smuggled ansatz, or renaming of a known empirical pattern appears. Score 1 reflects only the non-load-bearing self-citation of the authors' prior KEH work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central mass-increase claim rests on standard GR + RMF microphysics plus one conventional differential-rotation law and an approximate stability diagnostic. Free parameters are the scanned rotation-strength and deformation parameters plus literature hyperon potentials; no new particles or forces are invented. The ledger is therefore modest and mostly domain-standard.

free parameters (3)
  • Â^{-1} (differential-rotation strength) = 0–2.5 (Â^{-1}=1 representative)
    Scanned by hand (0–2.5); Â^{-1}=1 chosen as representative for the GW190814 survey. Controls how much mass support is gained.
  • Hyperon potential depths U_Y^{(N)} = U_Λ=-27.7, U_Σ=+30, U_Ξ=-21 MeV
    Fixed to literature values (U_Λ=-27.7 MeV, U_Σ=+30 MeV, U_Ξ=-21 MeV, U_ΛΛ=-5 MeV) that set the scalar couplings; different choices would stiffen or soften the EoS.
  • Axis ratio r_p/r_e and central density ρ_c
    Free parameters of each equilibrium sequence; scanned to map the mass–frequency plane.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Stationary, axisymmetric spacetime metric of the KEH/CST form and the integral Einstein equations derived from it.
    Standard for equilibrium rotating-star codes; invoked throughout Sec. II C.
  • domain assumption Differential rotation law j(Ω)=A²(Ω_c-Ω).
    Conventional one-parameter law used since KEH; not derived from microphysics (Sec. II C 2).
  • domain assumption SU(6) spin-flavor symmetry for vector-meson–hyperon couplings together with empirical potential depths for scalar couplings.
    Standard but conservative choice that keeps the nucleonic sector of FSUGarnet untouched (Sec. II A).
  • ad hoc to paper Turning-point criterion ∂M/∂ρ_c=0 as approximate secular-stability limit for differentially rotating stars.
    Authors explicitly note it is rigorous only for static/uniform rotation; adopted for lack of a better criterion (Sec. IV B 1).
  • domain assumption Beta equilibrium, charge neutrality, and zero-temperature RMF mean-field approximation for the EoS.
    Standard nuclear-astrophysics assumptions (Sec. II B).
invented entities (1)
  • hyperon ring (descriptive) no independent evidence
    purpose: Label for the toroidal off-center region in which hyperons appear while the low-density core remains nucleonic.
    Not a new physical entity; merely a name for a density/composition feature found in the extreme quasi-toroidal models. No independent evidence claimed beyond the equilibrium calculation itself.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 28884 in / 3331 out tokens · 36841 ms · 2026-07-13T00:46:48.030486+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The maximum mass of neutron stars provides a key constraint on the equation of state (EoS) of dense matter. Recent observations, including the ${\approx}2 M_{\odot}$ pulsar PSR~J0740+6620, have placed strong constraints on a large class of soft EoSs, while the possible existence of a compact object with a mass of $2.50$ - $2.67$ $M_{\odot}$ in GW 190814 further challenges our understanding of dense matter. Moreover, the inclusion of hyperonic degrees of freedom generally softens the EoS, making it difficult to support massive neutron stars even when the $2$ $M_{\odot}$ constraint is satisfied (a problem known as the hyperon puzzle). In this work, we investigate whether differential rotation can enhance the maximum mass of neutron stars constructed with an EoS including hyperons, thereby addressing the maximum-mass constraints imposed by current observations. We employ the Cook-Shapiro-Teukolsky (CST) approach, a numerically improved reformulation of the Komatsu-Eriguchi-Hachisu (KEH) scheme, to construct equilibrium configurations of differentially rotating neutron stars. For the nuclear matter EoS, we adopt a relativistic mean-field (RMF) model incorporating hyperonic degrees of freedom through an SU(6) symmetric coupling scheme. We find that differential rotation can substantially increase the maximum mass, yielding configurations consistent with the mass range inferred from GW 190814. However, a sufficiently soft EoS fails to satisfy the constraint from PSR~J0740+6620 (346 Hz) even with differential rotation applied. We also present a systematic analysis of the internal structure of the resulting equilibrium configurations. Furthermore, we demonstrate the existence of quasi-toroidal configurations and present equilibrium sequences incorporating the full baryon octet under extreme differential rotation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09040 by Hyukjin Kwon, Jinho Kim, Kazuyuki Sekizawa.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows c 2 s as a function of baryon number density nB for both FSUGarnet (thick black line) and FSUGarnet+SU(6) (thin gray line). From [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Particle fractions as a function of baryon number density for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Mass-radius relations for static neutron stars computed with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Properties of differentially rotating neutron stars as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Surface spin frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Mass-central density relations for differentially rotating neu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Two-dimensional density distribution of NS-II in the merid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Internal structure and spin frequency distributions of differentially rotating neutron stars. Upper panels show the density profiles (in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Two-dimensional density distribution of an extreme dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (a) Three-dimensional surface representation of a represen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗

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

82 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tau leptons are not produced in neutron star matter, as their rest mass (m τ c2 ≈ 1777MeV) far exceeds the typical lepton chemical potentials in the stellar interior

    Nucleonic core For the nucleonic core, the beta-equilibrium conditions are determined by the chemical potential equilibria: µn =µ p +µ e,(15a) µe =µ µ,(15b) together with the charge neutrality condition: np =n e +n µ.(16) Muons appear when the electron chemical potential exceeds the muon rest mass (mµc2 ≈105.7MeV). Tau leptons are not produced in neutron ...

  2. [2]

    Hyperonic core When hyperons are included, the beta-equilibrium condi- tions are generalized as µB =b Bµn −q Bµe,(22) whereb B andq B denote the baryon number and electric charge of baryonB, respectively. Explicitly, for the octet baryons: µΛ =µ n,(23a) µΣ− =µ n +µ e,(23b) µΣ0 =µ n,(23c) µΣ+ =µ n −µ e,(23d) µΞ− =µ n +µ e,(23e) µΞ0 =µ n.(23f) A hyperon spe...

  3. [3]

    The structure of such relativistic com- pact objects is determined by solving the Einstein field equa- tions [55]

    Static neutron star Neutron stars are compact objects with extremely strong gravitational fields, for which general relativistic effects can- not be neglected. The structure of such relativistic com- pact objects is determined by solving the Einstein field equa- tions [55]. Throughout this section, we adopt units in which G=c= 1. For non-rotating (spheric...

  4. [4]

    Rotating neutron star To model rotating neutron stars, we employ the KEH method [24] to construct rotating neutron star configurations. The metric for a stationary, axisymmetric spacetime is written as ds2 =−e γ+ϱdt2 +e 2α(dr2 +r 2dθ2) +e γ−ϱr2 sin2 θ(dϕ−ωdt) 2, (27) whereγ(r, θ),ϱ(r, θ), andα(r, θ)are metric potentials, and ω(r, θ)is the frame-dragging a...

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    PSR J0740+6620, rotating at 346 Hz, serves as one of the most stringent constraints on the neutron star maxi- mum mass and lies at the heart of the hyperon puzzle

    PSR J0740+6620 Next, we investigate whether equilibrium configurations satisfying the observational constraints of PSR J0740+6620 can be constructed using the FSUGarnet+SU(6) hyperonic EoS. PSR J0740+6620, rotating at 346 Hz, serves as one of the most stringent constraints on the neutron star maxi- mum mass and lies at the heart of the hyperon puzzle. The...

  6. [6]

    This places it in an ambigu- ous regime between a massive neutron star and a light black hole, making it one of the most debated objects in compact star physics

    GW 190814 GW 190814 is a compact binary coalescence event detected via gravitational waves, in which the secondary object has an inferred mass of2.50–2.67M ⊙. This places it in an ambigu- ous regime between a massive neutron star and a light black hole, making it one of the most debated objects in compact star physics. Unlike for pulsars, the spin frequen...

  7. [7]

    High-density configuration Under strong differential rotation, the density in the off- center region can reach values two to three times higher than the central density. This gives rise to extremely high-density interiors exceeding ten times the nuclear saturation density, which are generally difficult to realize in other configurations, and enables the a...

  8. [8]

    Quasi-toroidal configuration Another intriguing extreme configuration is thequasi- toroidalneutron star. Under sufficiently strong differential ro- tation, the stellar shape evolves progressively from an oblate spheroid toward a quasi-toroidal shape, where the shape looks toroidal, but there remains a non-vanishing density at the cen- ter. Figure 11 shows...

    2021

  9. [9]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. Marinova, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Ta- bles99, 69 (2013)

    2013

  10. [10]

    M. Wang, W. Huang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chi- nese Physics C45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    Li and X

    B.-A. Li and X. Han, Physics Letters B727, 276 (2013)

    2013

  12. [12]

    Shlomo, V

    S. Shlomo, V . M. Kolomietz, and G. Colò, The European Phys- ical Journal A - Hadrons and Nuclei30, 23 (2006)

    2006

  13. [13]

    G. F. Burgio and I. Vidaña, Universe6, 10.3390/uni- verse6080119 (2020)

    doi:10.3390/uni- 2020

  14. [14]

    Antoniadis, P

    J. Antoniadis, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, T. M. Tauris, R. S. Lynch, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Kramer, C. Bassa, V . S. Dhillon, T. Driebe, J. W. T. Hessels, V . M. Kaspi, V . I. Kon- dratiev, N. Langer, T. R. Marsh, M. A. McLaughlin, T. T. Pen- nucci, S. M. Ransom, I. H. Stairs, J. van Leeuwen, J. P. W. Verbiest, and D. G. Whelan, Science340, 1233232 (2013), ...

    doi:10.1126/science.1233232 2013

  15. [15]

    Fonseca, T

    E. Fonseca, T. T. Pennucci, J. A. Ellis, I. H. Stairs, D. J. Nice, S. M. Ransom, P. B. Demorest, Z. Arzoumanian, K. Crowter, T. Dolch, R. D. Ferdman, M. E. Gonzalez, G. Jones, M. L. Jones, M. T. Lam, L. Levin, M. A. McLaughlin, K. Stovall, J. K. Swiggum, and W. Zhu, The Astrophysical Journal832, 167 (2016)

    2016

  16. [16]

    H. T. Cromartie, E. Fonseca, S. M. Ransom, P. B. Demor- est, Z. Arzoumanian, H. Blumer, P. R. Brook, M. E. DeCesar, T. Dolch, J. A. Ellis, R. D. Ferdman, E. C. Ferrara, N. Garver- Daniels, P. A. Gentile, M. L. Jones, M. T. Lam, D. R. Lorimer, R. S. Lynch, M. A. McLaughlin, C. Ng, D. J. Nice, T. T. Pen- nucci, R. Spiewak, I. H. Stairs, K. Stovall, J. K. Sw...

    2020

  17. [17]

    Fonseca, H

    E. Fonseca, H. T. Cromartie, T. T. Pennucci, P. S. Ray, A. Y . Kirichenko, S. M. Ransom, P. B. Demorest, I. H. Stairs, Z. Ar- zoumanian, L. Guillemot, A. Parthasarathy, M. Kerr, I. Cog- nard, P. T. Baker, H. Blumer, P. R. Brook, M. DeCesar, T. Dolch, F. A. Dong, E. C. Ferrara, W. Fiore, N. Garver- Daniels, D. C. Good, R. Jennings, M. L. Jones, V . M. Kasp...

    2021

  18. [18]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, N. Aggarwal, O. D. Aguiar, A. Aich, L. Aiello, A. Ain, P. Ajith, S. Akcay, G. Allen, A. Allocca, P. A. Altin, A. Amato, S. Anand, A. Ananyeva, S. B. Anderson, W. G. Anderson, S. V . Angelova, S. Ansoldi, S. Antier, S. Ap...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    N. K. Glendenning, ApJ293, 470 (1985)

    1985

  20. [20]

    Chatterjee and I

    D. Chatterjee and I. V . na, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 29 (2016)

    2016

  21. [21]

    Chen and J

    W.-C. Chen and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C90, 044305 (2014)

    2014

  22. [22]

    Gonzalez-Boquera, M

    C. Gonzalez-Boquera, M. Centelles, X. Viñas, and L. Robledo, Physics Letters B779, 195 (2018)

    2018

  23. [23]

    Weissenborn, D

    S. Weissenborn, D. Chatterjee, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nu- clear Physics A881, 62 (2012), progress in Strangeness Nuclear Physics

    2012

  24. [24]

    Drago, A

    A. Drago, A. Lavagno, G. Pagliara, and D. Pigato, The Euro- pean Physical Journal A52, 40 (2016)

    2016

  25. [25]

    Vidaña, D

    I. Vidaña, D. Logoteta, C. Providência, A. Polls, and I. Bom- baci, Europhysics Letters94, 11002 (2011)

    2011

  26. [26]

    Yamamoto, T

    Y . Yamamoto, T. Furumoto, N. Yasutake, and T. A. Rijken, Phys. Rev. C88, 022801 (2013), arXiv:1308.2130 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [27]

    Lonardoni, A

    D. Lonardoni, A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi, and F. Pederiva, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 092301 (2015)

    2015

  28. [28]

    T. Lee, Y . Nam, and K. Sekizawa, Impact of hyperon mixing on neutron star structure based on skyrme-type equations of state: Systematic analysis ofλnnandλλnthree-body forces with bayesian inference (2026), arXiv:2605.28727 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Fujimoto, T

    Y . Fujimoto, T. Kojo, and L. McLerran, Phys. Rev. C113, 035206 (2026)

    2026

  30. [30]

    A. Li, F. Huang, and R.-X. Xu, Astroparticle Physics37, 70 (2012), arXiv:1208.3722 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  31. [31]

    Guha and D

    A. Guha and D. Sen, Phys. Rev. D109, 043038 (2024), arXiv:2401.14419 [astro-ph.HE]. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Komatsu, Y

    H. Komatsu, Y . Eriguchi, and I. Hachisu, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society237, 355 (1989), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/237/2/355/2983266/mnras237-0355.pdf

    1989

  33. [33]

    Komatsu, Y

    H. Komatsu, Y . Eriguchi, and I. Hachisu, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society239, 153 (1989), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/239/1/153/3769884/mnras239-0153.pdf

    1989

  34. [34]

    Bonazzola, E

    S. Bonazzola, E. Gourgoulhon, M. Salgado, and J. A. Marck, A&A278, 421 (1993)

    1993

  35. [35]

    Bonazzola, E

    S. Bonazzola, E. Gourgoulhon, and J.-A. Marck, Phys. Rev. D 58, 104020 (1998)

    1998

  36. [36]

    Astrophys

    Nozawa, T., Stergioulas, N., Gourgoulhon, E., and Eriguchi, Y ., Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser.132, 431 (1998)

    1998

  37. [37]

    Kwon and K

    H. Kwon and K. Sekizawa, Phys. Rev. C113, 055803 (2026)

    2026

  38. [38]

    J. W. T. Hessels, S. M. Ransom, I. H. Stairs, P. C. C. Freire, V . M. Kaspi, and F. Camilo, Science311, 1901 (2006), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1123430

    doi:10.1126/science.1123430 1901

  39. [39]

    Stergioulas and J

    N. Stergioulas and J. L. Friedman, ApJ444, 306 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9411032 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  40. [40]

    Zhang and B.-A

    N.-B. Zhang and B.-A. Li, The Astrophysical Journal902, 38 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    Shibata and K

    M. Shibata and K. b. o. Ury ¯u, Phys. Rev. D61, 064001 (2000)

    2000

  42. [42]

    T. W. Baumgarte, S. L. Shapiro, and M. Shibata, The Astro- physical Journal528, L29 (1999)

    1999

  43. [43]

    I. A. Morrison, T. W. Baumgarte, and S. L. Shapiro, The Astro- physical Journal610, 941 (2004)

    2004

  44. [44]

    G. B. Cook, S. L. Shapiro, and S. A. Teukolsky, ApJ398, 203 (1992)

    1992

  45. [45]

    G. B. Cook, S. L. Shapiro, and S. A. Teukolsky, ApJ422, 227 (1994)

    1994

  46. [46]

    Saffer, E

    A. Saffer, E. Fonseca, S. Ransom, I. Stairs, R. Lynch, D. Good, K. W. Masui, J. W. McKee, B. W. Meyers, S. S. Patil, and C. M. Tan, The Astrophysical Journal Letters983, L20 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Walecka, Annals of Physics83, 491 (1974)

    J. Walecka, Annals of Physics83, 491 (1974)

    1974

  48. [48]

    B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Adv. Nucl. Phys.16, 1 (1986)

    1986

  49. [49]

    Schaffner, C

    J. Schaffner, C. Dover, A. Gal, C. Greiner, D. Millener, and H. Stocker, Annals of Physics235, 35 (1994)

    1994

  50. [50]

    Chen and J

    W.-C. Chen and J. Piekarewicz, Physics Letters B748, 284 (2015)

    2015

  51. [51]

    Chen and J

    W.-C. Chen and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 161101 (2015)

    2015

  52. [52]

    Miyatsu, M.-K

    T. Miyatsu, M.-K. Cheoun, and K. Saito, Phys. Rev. C88, 015802 (2013)

    2013

  53. [53]

    Batty, E

    C. Batty, E. Friedman, and A. Gal, Physics Reports287, 385 (1997)

    1997

  54. [54]

    Kohno, Y

    M. Kohno, Y . Fujiwara, Y . Watanabe, K. Ogata, and M. Kawai, Progress of Theoretical Physics 112, 895 (2004), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/112/5/895/5435654/112-5-895.pdf

    2004

  55. [55]

    Friedman and A

    E. Friedman and A. Gal, Physics Reports452, 89 (2007)

    2007

  56. [56]

    Friedman and A

    E. Friedman and A. Gal, Physics Letters B837, 137669 (2023)

    2023

  57. [57]

    Friedman and A

    E. Friedman and A. Gal, Nuclear Physics A1039, 122725 (2023)

    2023

  58. [58]

    Friedman and A

    E. Friedman and A. Gal, Physics Letters B868, 139728 (2025)

    2025

  59. [59]

    Takahashi, J

    H. Takahashi, J. K. Ahn, H. Akikawa, S. Aoki, K. Arai, S. Y . Bahk, K. M. Baik, B. Bassalleck, J. H. Chung, M. S. Chung, D. H. Davis, T. Fukuda, K. Hoshino, A. Ichikawa, M. Ieiri, K. Imai, Y . H. Iwata, Y . S. Iwata, H. Kanda, M. Kaneko, T. Kawai, M. Kawasaki, C. O. Kim, J. Y . Kim, S. J. Kim, S. H. Kim, Y . Kondo, T. Kouketsu, Y . L. Lee, J. W. C. Mc- Na...

    2001

  60. [60]

    G. Baym, C. Pethick, and P. Sutherland, ApJ170, 299 (1971)

    1971

  61. [61]

    G. Baym, H. A. Bethe, and C. J. Pethick, Nucl. Phys. A175, 225 (1971)

    1971

  62. [62]

    Chabanat, P

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

    1997

  63. [63]

    Einstein, Annalen Phys.49, 769 (1916)

    A. Einstein, Annalen Phys.49, 769 (1916)

    1916

  64. [64]

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

    1939

  65. [65]

    G. B. Cook, S. L. Shapiro, and S. A. Teukolsky, The Astrophys- ical Journal424, 823 (1994)

    1994

  66. [66]

    E. M. Butterworth and J. R. Ipser, ApJ204, 200 (1976)

    1976

  67. [67]

    Chandrasekhar,Ellipsoidal figures of equilibrium(Yale Uni- versity Press, 1969)

    S. Chandrasekhar,Ellipsoidal figures of equilibrium(Yale Uni- versity Press, 1969)

    1969

  68. [68]

    J. L. Houser, J. M. Centrella, and S. C. Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1314 (1994)

    1994

  69. [69]

    J. M. Bardeen, ApJ161, 103 (1970)

    1970

  70. [70]

    S. M. Morsink and L. Stella, The Astrophysical Journal513, 827 (1999)

    1999

  71. [71]

    H. Kwon, K. Yoshimura, T. Miyatsu, K. Sekizawa, and M.-K. Cheoun, The Astrophysical Journal1001, 15 (2026)

    2026

  72. [72]

    J. L. Friedman, J. R. Ipser, and R. D. Sorkin, ApJ325, 722 (1988)

    1988

  73. [73]

    Takami, L

    K. Takami, L. Rezzolla, and S. Yoshida, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters416, L1 (2011)

    2011

  74. [74]

    L. R. Weih, E. R. Most, and L. Rezzolla, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters473, L126 (2018)

    2018

  75. [75]

    Miyatsu, M.-K

    T. Miyatsu, M.-K. Cheoun, K. Kim, and K. Saito, Symmetry 17, 10.3390/sym17111872 (2025)

    work page doi:10.3390/sym17111872 2025

  76. [76]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, S. M. Morsink, A. V . Bilous, Z. Arzoumanian, D. Choudhury, J. S. Deneva, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewenstein, R. M. Ludlam, C. B. Mark- wardt, T. Okajima, C. Prescod-Weinstein, R. A. Remillard, M. T. Wolff, E. Fonseca, H. T. Cromartie, M. Kerr, T. T. Pen-...

    2021

  77. [77]

    Biswas, R

    B. Biswas, R. Nandi, P. Char, S. Bose, and N. Ster- gioulas, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci- ety505, 1600 (2021), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/505/2/1600/38463623/stab1383.pdf

    2021

  78. [78]

    Shibata, T

    M. Shibata, T. W. Baumgarte, and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophys. J. 542, 453 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0005378

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  79. [79]

    J. M. Stone, P. D. Mullen, D. Fielding, P. Grete, M. Guo, P. Kempski, E. R. Most, C. J. White, and G. N. Wong, ApJS 283, 27 (2026), arXiv:2409.16053 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  80. [80]

    E. Zhou, A. Tsokaros, K. b. o. Ury ¯u, R. Xu, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D100, 043015 (2019)

    2019

Showing first 80 references.