Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 84 references

Subsurface Vacancy Engineering Enables Atomically Clean and Oxidation-Resistant Copper Interfaces for Anode-Free Lithium Metal Batteries

T0 review · 3 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Copper-ion implantation is claimed to strip native oxide, trap oxygen in subsurface vacancies, and give 98.8% Coulombic efficiency over 600 cycles in anode-free lithium metal batteries.

desk verdict The submitted manuscript is not the paper in the abstract: the body is an unrelated neutron-star nucleon-mass preprint, so the battery claim has no supporting evidence here and the submission cannot be reviewed as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00236 v2 pith:UKVCEYXX submitted 2025-08-01 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.app-ph

Yue Li , Xuanguang Ren , Xueting Feng , Lingcheng Kong , Fengping Luo , Yang Xu , Liu Qian , Yusheng Ye
show 3 more authors
Ziqiang Zhao Xin Gao Jin Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph
keywords ionimplantationcoppercurrentcollectoranode-freelithiummetalbatterysolidelectrolyteinterphaseCoulombicefficiencynativeoxideremovalsubsurfacevacancies
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

The paper argues that implanting copper ions into commercial copper foil removes the native oxide and creates subsurface vacancy clusters that act as oxygen traps, fundamentally changing the interfacial chemistry without increasing collector thickness. These traps are claimed to prevent reoxidation, raise interfacial conductivity, and steer formation of an ultrathin, Li2O-enriched solid electrolyte interphase that promotes uniform lithium deposition and suppresses parasitic reactions. The abstract reports that anode-free lithium metal batteries with these engineered current collectors sustain a Coulombic efficiency of 98.8% over 600 cycles under lean-electrolyte conditions. The submitted manuscript, however, contains a full text that is an unrelated nucleon-mass analysis, so none of the stated experimental or multiscale-simulation evidence appears in the paper as presented.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the subsurface vacancy cluster produced by ion implantation of copper into a commercial foil. The paper's name for the strategy, 'subsurface vacancy engineering,' refers to an atomic-scale modification: the vacancies sit directly beneath the surface, act as strong oxygen traps that keep the interface from reoxidizing, and are said to guide formation of an ultrathin, Li2O-enriched solid electrolyte interphase. The abstract asserts that experiments and multiscale simulations connect these vacancies to enhanced interfacial conductivity, uniform lithium deposition, and suppressed parasitic reactions, without increasing the collector's thickness. The submitted full text does not describe these experiments or simulations.

What would settle it

Run anode-free cells with copper-ion-implanted foil under the same lean-electrolyte conditions and measure Coulombic efficiency over 600 cycles: if it falls substantially below 98.8% or is indistinguishable from untreated foil, the central claim fails. A simpler check specific to this submission is that the full text contains no battery data at all, so the claimed experimental support is absent and cannot be verified from the manuscript as written.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that subsurface vacancy engineering of copper current collectors—achieved by implanting copper ions into commercial foils—removes the native oxide while generating vacancy clusters directly beneath the surface. These vacancies are asserted to act as strong oxygen traps that prevent reoxidation, enhance interfacial conductivity, and guide the formation of an ultrathin, Li2O-enriched SEI, which together deliver uniform lithium deposition and suppressed parasitic reactions. If the claim is correct, the engineered collectors provide long-term stability with a Coulombic efficiency of 98.8% over 600 cycles under lean-electrolyte conditions. As submitted, the full text presents an unrelated analysis of the origin of nucleon mass from neutron star observations and does not contain the battery experiments or multiscale simulations that the abstract announces.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the manuscript actually contains the experimental and multiscale-simulation evidence for the vacancy-mediated oxygen-trapping mechanism and the 600-cycle battery data; in the submitted document, the full text instead presents an unrelated neutron star nucleon mass analysis, so this premise is entirely unmet.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mechanism holds, ion-implanted copper current collectors could extend the cycle life of anode-free lithium metal batteries under lean-electrolyte conditions, which is a key barrier to practical high-energy-density cells.
  • An atomically clean, oxidation-resistant copper interface would reduce parasitic reactions that consume electrolyte and drive cell failure, directly addressing a known failure mode in anode-free designs.
  • A Li2O-enriched SEI, as predicted, would promote uniform lithium nucleation and deposition, potentially suppressing dendrite growth and improving safety.
  • Because the treatment starts from commercial foils and adds no thickness, the strategy could be retrofitted into existing cell manufacturing lines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the oxygen-trapping role of vacancies is real, the same ion-implantation approach could be tested on other metal current collectors, such as aluminum or nickel, where native oxides also impede interfacial charge transfer.
  • The vacancy-trapping mechanism predicts a measurable difference in subsurface oxygen content between implanted and untreated foils after air or electrolyte exposure, a signature that could be checked by depth-resolved X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy.
  • The reported 98.8% Coulombic efficiency is tied to specific lean-electrolyte conditions; mapping efficiency across electrolyte volumes, current densities, and temperatures would show whether the benefit persists beyond the tested operating window.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript submitted under the title 'Subsurface Vacancy Engineering Enables Atomically Clean and Oxidation-Resistant Copper Interfaces for Anode-Free Lithium Metal Batteries' presents an abstract that reports an ion-implantation strategy for copper current collectors, with claims of native-oxide removal, subsurface vacancy clusters, oxygen-trapping behavior, a Li2O-enriched solid electrolyte interphase, and a Coulombic efficiency of 98.8% over 600 cycles. The full text of the submission, however, is an unrelated nuclear-astrophysics paper, 'Implication of neutron star observations to the origin of nucleon mass' (arXiv:2508.00243v1, [nucl-th], by Gao, Liu, Harada, and Ma), which contains equations of state for neutron-star matter, TOV solutions, and constraints on the chiral invariant mass. No battery experiments, no ion-implantation protocol, no vacancy-cluster characterization, no multiscale simulations, and no electrochemical data appear anywhere in the document.

Significance. If the claimed result were presented with the corresponding evidence, an atomically clean, oxidation-resistant copper interface for anode-free lithium metal batteries would be a practically relevant contribution to current-collector engineering. However, none of the claimed evidence is present in the submitted manuscript. The full text has no connection to the abstract, and no data, derivations, code, or falsifiable predictions for the battery claim are supplied. The significance of the abstract's claims therefore cannot be assessed from this submission, and the document as submitted cannot serve as the basis for a journal publication. The unrelated nucleon-mass analysis may have its own merits, but it is a different paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Title and Abstract vs. Full Text] The abstract's central claim—that copper-ion implantation removes native oxide, creates subsurface vacancy clusters, and yields 98.8% Coulombic efficiency over 600 cycles—is not supported by the manuscript body. The body is arXiv:2508.00243v1 [nucl-th], 'Implication of neutron star observations to the origin of nucleon mass.' The submission therefore does not contain the experiments or simulations described in the abstract; this is a load-bearing internal inconsistency, independent of the physical plausibility of the battery mechanism.
  2. [Full Text (Experimental and Simulation Content)] No section of the document reports an ion-implantation protocol (dose, energy, current, or fluence), no XPS, STEM, EELS, or other characterization of the native oxide or vacancy clusters, no DFT or MD simulation setup, no SEI compositional analysis, and no cell-cycling data. The figures and equations in the body (e.g., Fig. 1 EOS curves, Fig. 3 mass-radius relations, and the TOV equations) all belong to the neutron-star analysis and have no bearing on the abstract's battery claims.
  3. [Abstract, last sentence] The abstract's phrase 'Experiments and multiscale simulations reveal' promises evidence that the submitted text does not contain. Because the entire quantitative payload of the abstract—including the 98.8% Coulombic efficiency over 600 cycles under lean-electrolyte conditions—is unaccompanied by any data or methodology, the submitted document cannot be verified or reproduced in any part.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning is present because the claimed battery derivation is entirely absent: the submitted full text is an unrelated neutron-star nucleon-mass paper, so there is no derivation chain to reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's stated central claim is that Cu-ion implantation into commercial copper foils removes native oxide, creates subsurface vacancy clusters that trap oxygen, guides Li2O-enriched SEI formation, and delivers 98.8% Coulombic efficiency over 600 cycles in anode-free lithium metal batteries. The abstract attributes this to 'Experiments and multiscale simulations,' but the supplied full text is instead the nucleon-mass paper 'Implication of neutron star observations to the origin of nucleon mass' (arXiv:2508.00243v1 [nucl-th]) by Gao, Liu, Harada, and Ma. There is no experimental protocol, no vacancy-cluster characterization, no SEI analysis, no electrochemical cycling data, and no multiscale simulation of copper interfaces anywhere in the document. Circularity requires a claimed derivation that can be exhibited as equivalent to its own inputs by construction, a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or a load-bearing argument that reduces to a self-citation. None of those conditions can be met here because the claimed derivation does not exist in the manuscript. The mismatch between the title/abstract and the body is a serious integrity and verifiability problem, but it is unsupportedness, not circular reasoning. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0, with no specific circular steps identified.

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

The central battery claim is asserted in the abstract, but the manuscript body provides no derivation, data, or simulation. Therefore no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified for the stated claim. The body contains a separate neutron star analysis with its own parameters, but that is not the paper's stated central claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Subsurface Vacancy Engineering Enables Atomically Clean and Oxidation-Resistant Copper Interfaces for Anode-Free Lithium Metal Batteries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UKVCEYXX

@misc{pith2026250800236,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Subsurface Vacancy Engineering Enables Atomically Clean and Oxidation-Resistant Copper Interfaces for Anode-Free Lithium Metal Batteries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UKVCEYXX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00236}
}
read the original abstract

Interfaces govern reaction pathways and stability in electrochemical systems, yet creating clean, well-defined metal interfaces at scale remains challenging. In anode-free lithium metal batteries (AFLMBs), the current-collector interface is decisive for lithium nucleation and solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) formation, and ideally should support efficient charge transport, uniform reaction distribution, and long-term chemical and structural stability. Here we report an ion-implantation strategy that produces an atomically clean and oxidation-resistant copper interface. Implanting copper ions into commercial foils removes the native oxide while generating subsurface vacancy clusters directly beneath the surface -- an atomic-scale modification that does not increase the collector thickness but fundamentally alters interfacial chemistry. Experiments and multiscale simulations reveal that these vacancies act as strong oxygen traps, preventing reoxidation, enhancing interfacial conductivity, and guiding the formation of an ultrathin, Li2O-enriched SEI that promotes uniform lithium deposition and suppresses parasitic reactions. Applied in AFLMBs, the engineered current collectors deliver long-term stability with a Coulombic efficiency of 98.8% over 600 cycles under lean-electrolyte conditions. These findings demonstrate atomic-scale interface control of copper current collectors as a route toward stable and practical lithium metal batteries.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aarts, C

    G. Aarts, C. Allton, S. Hands, B. J ¨ager, C. Praki, and J.-I. Skullerud, Phys. Rev. D 92, 014503 (2015), arXiv:1502.03603 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Aarts, C

    G. Aarts, C. Allton, D. De Boni, S. Hands, B. J ¨ager, C. Praki, and J.-I. Skullerud, JHEP 06, 034 (2017), arXiv:1703.09246 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Aarts, C

    G. Aarts, C. Allton, D. De Boni, and B. J ¨ager, Phys. Rev. D 99, 074503 (2019), arXiv:1812.07393 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Kim and S

    J. Kim and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 103, L051501 (2021), arXiv:2012.06463 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Kim and S

    J. Kim and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 105, 014014 (2022), arXiv:2109.12791 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    S. H. Lee, Symmetry 15, 799 (2023), arXiv:2303.14415 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Annals Phys. 158, 142 (1984)

    1984

  8. [8]

    Hatsuda and T

    T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rept. 247, 221 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9401310

    arXiv 1994

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    R. S. Hayano and T. Hatsuda, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2949 (2010), arXiv:0812.1702 [nucl-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. , Phys. Rev. D 85, 054503 (2012), arXiv:1111.1710 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Fukushima and C

    K. Fukushima and C. Sasaki, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 72, 99 6 (2013), arXiv:1301.6377 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Buballa and S

    M. Buballa and S. Carignano, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 81, 39 (2015), arXiv:1406.1367 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gubler and D

    P. Gubler and D. Satow, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106, 1 (2019), arXiv:1812.00385 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    C. E. Detar and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rev. D 39, 2805 (1989)

    1989

  7. [15]

    D. Jido, M. Oka, and A. Hosaka, Prog. Theor. Phys. 106, 873 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0110005

    2001 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Fonseca et al

    E. Fonseca et al. , Astrophys. J. 832, 167 (2016), arXiv:1603.00545 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

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

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi GBM, INTEGRAL, IceCube, AstroSat Cadmium Zinc Telluride Imager Team, IPN, Insight-Hxmt, ANTARES, Swift, AG- ILE Team, 1M2H Team, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM, DES, DLT40, GRAWITA, Fermi-LAT, ATCA, ASKAP, Las Cumbres Observatory Gr...

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    M. C. Miller et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L28 (2021), arXiv:2105.06979 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, S. M. Morsink, A. V . Bilous, Z. Arzoumanian, D. Choud- hury, J. S. Deneva, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewenstein, R. M. Lud- lam, C. B. Markwardt, T. Okajima, C. Prescod-Weinste...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Fonseca et al

    E. Fonseca et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, L12 (2021), arXiv:2104.00880 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Vinciguerra et al

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

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Kacanja and A

    K. Kacanja and A. H. Nitz, (2024), arXiv:2412.05369 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    McLerran and R

    L. McLerran and R. D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. A 796, 83 (2007), arXiv:0706.2191 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  17. [25]

    McLerran, K

    L. McLerran, K. Redlich, and C. Sasaki, Nucl. Phys. A 824, 86 (2009), arXiv:0812.3585 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Kojo, Phys

    T. Kojo, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074005 (2021), arXiv:2106.06687 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Fujimoto, T

    Y . Fujimoto, T. Kojo, and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 112701 (2024), arXiv:2306.04304 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gao and M

    B. Gao and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. D 111, 016024 (2025), arXiv:2410.16649 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Masuda, T

    K. Masuda, T. Hatsuda, and T. Takatsuka, PTEP 2013, 073D01 (2013), arXiv:1212.6803 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Masuda, T

    K. Masuda, T. Hatsuda, and T. Takatsuka, Astrophys. J. 764, 12 (2013), arXiv:1205.3621 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

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

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    T. Kojo, G. Baym, and T. Hatsuda, Astrophys. J. 934, 46 (2022), arXiv:2111.11919 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Minamikawa, T

    T. Minamikawa, T. Kojo, and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. C103, 045205 (2021), arXiv:2011.13684 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Blaschke, E

    D. Blaschke, E. O. Hanu, and S. Liebing, Phys. Rev. C 105, 035804 (2022), arXiv:2112.12145 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Minamikawa, B

    T. Minamikawa, B. Gao, T. Kojo, and M. Harada, Symme- try 15, 745 (2023), arXiv:2302.00825 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Y .-K. Kong, B. Gao, and M. Harada, (2025), arXiv:2506.16684 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    C. H. Lenzi and G. Lugones, Astrophys. J. 759, 57 (2012), arXiv:1206.4108 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Benic, D

    S. Benic, D. Blaschke, D. E. Alvarez-Castillo, T. Fis- cher, and S. Typel, Astron. Astrophys. 577, A40 (2015), arXiv:1411.2856 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    G. A. Contrera, D. Blaschke, J. P. Carlomagno, A. G. Grun- feld, and S. Liebing, Phys. Rev. C 105, 045808 (2022), arXiv:2201.00477 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Christian, J

    J.-E. Christian, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and S. Rosswog, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063035 (2024), arXiv:2312.10148 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Gao, W.-L

    B. Gao, W.-L. Yuan, M. Harada, and Y .-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 110, 045802 (2024), arXiv:2407.13990 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. J. Li, A. Sedrakian, and M. Alford, JCAP 02, 002 (2025), arXiv:2409.05322 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    W.-L. Yuan, B. Gao, Y . Yan, and R. Xu, (2025), arXiv:2502.17859 [nucl-th]

    2025

  37. [45]

    Ma and M

    Y .-L. Ma and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. D 99, 014034 (2019), arXiv:1810.06062 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Ma and M

    Y .-L. Ma and M. Rho, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 113, 103791 (2020), arXiv:1909.05889 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Li, B.-J

    F. Li, B.-J. Cai, Y . Zhou, W.-Z. Jiang, and L.-W. Chen, Astrophys. J. 929, 183 (2022), arXiv:2202.08705 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Miyatsu, M.-K

    T. Miyatsu, M.-K. Cheoun, and K. Saito, Astrophys. J. 929, 82 (2022), arXiv:2202.06468 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Zhang, Y

    L.-Q. Zhang, Y . Ma, and Y .-L. Ma, (2024), arXiv:2410.04142 [nucl-th]

    2024

  42. [50]

    Zhang, Y

    L.-Q. Zhang, Y . Ma, and Y .-L. Ma, (2024), arXiv:2412.19023 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Gholami, I

    H. Gholami, I. A. Rather, M. Hofmann, M. Buballa, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 111, 103034 (2025), arXiv:2411.04064 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Zschiesche, L

    D. Zschiesche, L. Tolos, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. C 75, 055202 (2007), arXiv:nucl- th/0608044

    2007

  45. [53]

    Dexheimer, S

    V . Dexheimer, S. Schramm, and D. Zschiesche, Phys. Rev. C 77, 025803 (2008), arXiv:0710.4192 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Dexheimer, S

    V . Dexheimer, S. Schramm, and D. Zschiesche, Phys. Rev. C 77, 025803 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    Sasaki and I

    C. Sasaki and I. Mishustin, Phys. Rev. C82, 035204 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    Steinheimer, S

    J. Steinheimer, S. Schramm, and H. Stocker, Phys. Rev. C 84, 045208 (2011), arXiv:1108.2596 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Dexheimer, J

    V . Dexheimer, J. Steinheimer, R. Negreiros, and S. Schramm, Phys. Rev. C 87, 015804 (2013), arXiv:1206.3086 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Motohiro, Y

    Y . Motohiro, Y . Kim, and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. C 92, 7 025201 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 95, 059903 (2017)], arXiv:1505.00988 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Marczenko, D

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

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Marczenko, K

    M. Marczenko, K. Redlich, and C. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103009 (2022), arXiv:2203.00269 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Marczenko, Phys

    M. Marczenko, Phys. Rev. D 110, 014018 (2024), arXiv:2405.06360 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Marczenko, K

    M. Marczenko, K. Redlich, and C. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. C 111, 065203 (2025), arXiv:2410.21746 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Yasui, M

    S. Yasui, M. Nitta, and C. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D111, 034029 (2025), arXiv:2409.05670 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Yuan and A

    W.-L. Yuan and A. Li, Astrophys. J. 966, 3 (2024), arXiv:2312.17102 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    B. Gao, Y . Yan, and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. C 109, 065807 (2024), arXiv:2404.04786 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Komoltsev and A

    O. Komoltsev and A. Kurkela, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 202701 (2022), arXiv:2111.05350 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Somasundaram, I

    R. Somasundaram, I. Tews, and J. Margueron, Phys. Rev. C 107, L052801 (2023), arXiv:2204.14039 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Komoltsev, R

    O. Komoltsev, R. Somasundaram, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. Margueron, and I. Tews, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094030 (2024), arXiv:2312.14127 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Kurkela, K

    A. Kurkela, K. Rajagopal, and R. Steinhorst, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 262701 (2024), arXiv:2401.16253 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Bednarek, P

    I. Bednarek, P. Haensel, J. L. Zdunik, M. Bejger, and R. Manka, Astron. Astrophys. 543, A157 (2012), arXiv:1111.6942 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Hebeler, J

    K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, Astrophys. J. 773, 11 (2013), arXiv:1303.4662 [astro- ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Li, B.-J

    B.-A. Li, B.-J. Cai, W.-J. Xie, and N.-B. Zhang, Universe 7, 182 (2021), arXiv:2105.04629 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y . Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, and K. Murase, JHEP 03, 273 (2021), arXiv:2101.08156 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Raaijmakers, S

    G. Raaijmakers, S. K. Greif, K. Hebeler, T. Hinderer, S. Nis- sanke, A. Schwenk, T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, J. M. Lat- timer, and W. C. G. Ho, Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L29 (2021), arXiv:2105.06981 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    F. Ozel, D. Psaltis, T. Guver, G. Baym, C. Heinke, and S. Guillot, Astrophys. J. 820, 28 (2016), arXiv:1505.05155 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Bogdanov, C

    S. Bogdanov, C. O. Heinke, F. ¨Ozel, and T. G ¨uver, Astro- phys. J. 831, 184 (2016), arXiv:1603.01630 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  69. [77]

    M. C. Miller et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L24 (2019), arXiv:1912.05705 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Choudhury et al

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

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  72. [80]

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V . Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L17 (2022), arXiv:2207.05124 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Doroshenko, V

    V . Doroshenko, V . Suleimanov, G. P¨uhlhofer, and A. San- tangelo, Nature Astron. 6, 1444 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55, 364 (1939)

    1939

  75. [83]

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

    1939

  76. [84]

    Hatta, A

    Y . Hatta, A. Rajan, and K. Tanaka, JHEP 12, 008 (2018), arXiv:1810.05116 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.