pith. sign in

arxiv: 2412.05599 · v2 · pith:EBB6MZ46new · submitted 2024-12-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · nucl-th

Superfluid fraction in the crystalline crust of a neutron star: role of BCS pairing

Nicolas Chamel This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 08:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE nucl-th
keywords neutron star crustsuperfluid fractionBCS pairingHartree-Fock-Bogoliubovpulsar glitchesbody-centered cubic latticeband structurelinear response
0
0 comments X

The pith

The superfluid fraction in a neutron star's crystalline crust is insensitive to the BCS pairing gap and equals only 8% at 0.03 fm^{-3}.

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

This paper models the inner crust of a neutron star as a perfect body-centered cubic crystal and computes the superfluid fraction of neutrons using self-consistent time-dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory in the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer approximation. The calculations are performed within linear-response theory for small superfluid velocities. Although Cooper pairing is required for superfluidity to exist, the resulting fraction of neutrons that actually participate in superflow turns out to be independent of the pairing gap size, just as in uniform neutron matter. At a representative intermediate density of 0.03 fm^{-3}, only 8% of the free neutrons contribute to the superflow, which is far lower than assumed in standard models.

Core claim

Treating the inner crust as a perfect crystal in the self-consistent time-dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory, with the superfluid fraction derived in the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer approximation for superfluid velocities much smaller than Landau's critical velocity within the linear-response theory, three-dimensional band-structure calculations show that the superfluid fraction is insensitive to the pairing gap and reaches only 8% of free neutrons at an average baryon number density of 0.03 fm^{-3}.

What carries the argument

Three-dimensional band-structure calculations of superfluid neutrons in a body-centered cubic lattice within the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer approximation of time-dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory.

If this is right

  • The superfluid fraction does not depend on the size of the pairing gap.
  • The crystalline lattice strongly depletes the superfluid reservoir of free neutrons.
  • Classical models of pulsar frequency glitches that assume a much larger superfluid fraction must be revised.
  • More systematic calculations are needed within the full Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov framework beyond the BCS approximation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same lattice-induced depletion mechanism may operate in other periodic superfluid systems such as atomic condensates in optical lattices.
  • The superfluid fraction is likely to change with density across the inner crust, affecting which layers contribute most to glitches.
  • Entrainment between the neutron superfluid and the lattice ions may further reduce the effective participating fraction beyond the reported 8%.
  • Cooling rates or other transport properties that rely on the superfluid neutron reservoir could be affected by the lower fraction.

Load-bearing premise

The inner crust is treated as a perfect crystal with superfluid velocities much smaller than Landau's critical velocity so that the linear-response BCS approximation applies.

What would settle it

A full time-dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov calculation or a pulsar glitch observation requiring more than 8% of free neutrons to participate in superflow at 0.03 fm^{-3} would falsify the reported fraction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05599 by Nicolas Chamel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Neutron density distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Local neutron effective mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Local neutron potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The results obtained with these two completely different methods are thus found to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Convergence of the neutron superfluid fraction as calculated from Eq. (58) with respect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Convergence of the neutron superfluid fraction as calculated from Eq. (59) with respect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Convergence of the superfluid fraction with respect to the spatial grid spacing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Convergence of the neutron superfluid fraction as calculated from Eq. (56) with respect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Watson’s integral for a body-centered cubic lattice as evaluated using the special-point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Relative deviation between the exact value of the Watson’s integral for a body-centered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Body-centered cubic lattice Green function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Relative deviation between the exact value of the body-centered cubic lattice Green [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Density of states for the tight-binding model as calculated using the Gilat-Raubenheimer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The breaking of translational symmetry in the inner crust of a neutron star leads to the depletion of the neutron superfluid reservoir similarly to cold atomic condensates in optical lattices and in supersolids. This effect is studied in the general framework of the self-consistent time-dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) theory, treating the crust as a perfect crystal. The superfluid fraction is derived in the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer approximation for superfluid velocities much smaller than Landau's critical velocity within the linear-response theory. The different assumptions made in previous studies are clarified. Fully three-dimensional band-structure calculations of superfluid neutrons in a body-centered cubic lattice are carried out. Although the formation of Cooper pairs is essential for the occurrence of superfluidity, the superfluid fraction is found to be insensitive to the pairing gap, as in uniform neutron matter. In the intermediate region of the inner crust at the average baryon number density 0.03 fm$^{-3}$, only 8\% of the free neutrons are found to participate to the superflow. Such very low superfluid fraction challenges the classical interpretation of pulsar frequency glitches and calls for more systematic calculations within the full HFB approach.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the depletion of the neutron superfluid reservoir in the inner crust of a neutron star due to broken translational symmetry, modeled as a perfect BCC crystal within self-consistent time-dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory. The superfluid fraction is computed via the BCS approximation in linear-response theory for small velocities below the Landau critical velocity. Fully 3D band-structure calculations are performed, yielding the result that the superfluid fraction is insensitive to the pairing gap (as in uniform matter) and equals only 8% of free neutrons at average baryon density 0.03 fm^{-3}.

Significance. If robust, the 8% value would be significant for neutron-star glitch modeling by implying a substantially reduced superfluid reservoir in the inner crust. The work performs explicit 3D lattice calculations and clarifies prior assumptions, which are strengths. The reported insensitivity to the gap aligns with known uniform-matter results but requires verification in the modulated lattice setting.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the superfluid fraction is derived in the BCS approximation within linear-response theory, yet the framework is self-consistent TD-HFB on a lattice where the gap is spatially modulated by the mean-field potential; it is unclear whether entrainment and band-structure effects factorize from the pairing dynamics under the uniform BCS treatment of the current response, which directly supports the reported 8% value at 0.03 fm^{-3}.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract/Method: the 8% superfluid fraction at 0.03 fm^{-3} is stated without accompanying error bars, sensitivity tests to the linear-response assumption, or explicit verification that the post-hoc density choice and small-velocity limit hold quantitatively in the lattice calculation.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'the different assumptions made in previous studies are clarified' would be strengthened by naming the specific studies and the precise clarifications provided.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

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

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the superfluid fraction is derived in the BCS approximation within linear-response theory, yet the framework is self-consistent TD-HFB on a lattice where the gap is spatially modulated by the mean-field potential; it is unclear whether entrainment and band-structure effects factorize from the pairing dynamics under the uniform BCS treatment of the current response, which directly supports the reported 8% value at 0.03 fm^{-3}.

    Authors: We thank the referee for raising this point on factorization. The self-consistent HFB mean field generates the lattice potential and the associated Bloch band structure that encodes the entrainment effects due to broken translational symmetry. The pairing gap is determined self-consistently from the same mean field and is therefore spatially modulated; however, the linear-response current is evaluated in the BCS approximation using the band energies and the (average) gap value. Because the superfluid fraction is explicitly shown to be insensitive to the gap magnitude (consistent with the uniform-matter limit), the spatial modulation of the gap does not change the numerical result. We will revise the abstract and the methods section to state this separation of scales more explicitly and to note that the uniform-BCS treatment of the response is an approximation whose validity rests on the observed gap insensitivity. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract/Method: the 8% superfluid fraction at 0.03 fm^{-3} is stated without accompanying error bars, sensitivity tests to the linear-response assumption, or explicit verification that the post-hoc density choice and small-velocity limit hold quantitatively in the lattice calculation.

    Authors: The quoted 8% value is the direct numerical outcome of the three-dimensional band-structure calculation performed at the chosen average baryon density within the linear-response formula, which is derived under the assumption of velocities well below the Landau critical velocity. The linear-response regime is therefore built into the formalism. The density 0.03 fm^{-3} is selected as representative of the intermediate inner crust. We acknowledge that the manuscript does not present explicit numerical checks of the small-velocity limit inside the lattice geometry or error estimates arising from the density choice. In the revised version we will add a paragraph discussing the range of validity of the linear-response assumption and, where computationally feasible, supplementary calculations that test the sensitivity to small but finite velocities and to modest density variations around 0.03 fm^{-3}. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Explicit band-structure computation yields superfluid fraction with no definitional reduction

full rationale

The paper computes the superfluid fraction via fully three-dimensional band-structure calculations of the linear response in the BCS approximation inside the TD-HFB framework on a BCC lattice. The reported 8% value at 0.03 fm^{-3} and the observed insensitivity to the pairing gap both emerge directly from the numerical evaluation of the current response; neither quantity is obtained by fitting a parameter to a related observable nor by any self-referential definition that would make the output identical to an input by construction. No load-bearing step reduces to a prior self-citation or to an ansatz smuggled through citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on modeling the crust as a perfect periodic crystal and applying the BCS limit of HFB theory under linear response; no free parameters are explicitly fitted in the abstract, but the density value and lattice type are chosen inputs.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The inner crust of a neutron star can be modeled as a perfect body-centered cubic crystal lattice of nuclei with delocalized neutrons.
    Explicitly stated as treating the crust as a perfect crystal for the band-structure calculations.
  • domain assumption The superfluid fraction can be derived from linear-response theory in the BCS approximation for velocities below the Landau critical velocity.
    Stated as the framework used to derive the superfluid fraction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5743 in / 1454 out tokens · 30593 ms · 2026-05-23T08:03:41.428827+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Properties of the neutron star crust informed by nuclear structure data

    nucl-th 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Bayesian NS EoS study using full nuclear posterior distributions and consistent crust modeling finds increased surface thickness and crustal moment of inertia relative to prior work.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    The imaginary part inside the band is related to the density of single-particle states

    Brillouin-zone integrations To check our implementation of the special-point method and its accuracy, the body- centered cubic lattice Green’s function has been calculated for the tight-binding model de- fined by [69] G(E) = 1 ΩBZ Z BZ d3kkk E − ϵkkk , (A1) ϵkkk = ϵ0 − ϵ1 cos(kxa/2) cos(kya/2) cos(kza/2) , (A2) where ϵ0 and ϵ1 can be expressed in terms of...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Fermi surface integrations To test our implementation of this method, the density of states has been calculated for the tight-binding model defined by D(E) = Z BZ d3kkk δ(E − ϵkkk) = Z dS |∇∇∇kkkϵkkk| ≈ cmaxX c=1 wc Sc |∇∇∇kckckcϵkckckc| (A9) with the band energy given by Eq. (A2). As shown in Fig. 12, results using 1360 cubic cells in the irreducible dom...

    work page

  3. [3]

    A. J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 1543 (1970)

    work page 1970

  4. [4]

    Chamel and V

    N. Chamel and V. Allard, Phys. Rev. C 100, 065801 (2019). 35 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 E 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600(E) FIG. 12. Density of states for the tight-binding model as calculated using the Gilat-Raubenheimer method with 1360 cubic cells (dots) and the fit (solid line) of Ref. [73]

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Allard and N

    V. Allard and N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. C 103, 025804 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Chauveau, C

    G. Chauveau, C. Maury, F. Rabec, C. Heintze, G. Brochier, S. Nascimbene, J. Dalibard, J. Beugnon, S. M. Roccuzzo, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 226003 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.226003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.226003 2023

  7. [7]

    J. Tao, M. Zhao, and I. B. Spielman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 163401 (2023), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.163401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.163401 2023

  8. [8]

    Biagioni, N

    G. Biagioni, N. Antolini, B. Donelli, L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. Fattori, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, M. Inguscio, L. Tanzi, et al., Nature 629, 773 (2024), ISSN 1476-4687, publisher: Nature Publishing Group, URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07361-9

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Casotti, E

    E. Casotti, E. Poli, L. Klaus, A. Litvinov, C. Ulm, C. Politi, M. J. Mark, T. Bland, and F. Ferlaino, Nature (London) 635, 327 (2024), 2403.18510

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Orso, Phys

    G. Orso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 250402 (2007), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.99.250402

    work page 2007

  11. [11]

    Orso and S

    G. Orso and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. A 109, 023301 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.023301

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.109.023301 2024

  12. [12]

    Chamel, Phd thesis, Universit´ e Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI, France (2004), URL https://theses.hal.science/tel-00011130

    N. Chamel, Phd thesis, Universit´ e Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI, France (2004), URL https://theses.hal.science/tel-00011130. 36

    work page 2004

  13. [13]

    Carter, N

    B. Carter, N. Chamel, and P. Haensel, Nucl. Phys. A 748, 675 (2005)

    work page 2005

  14. [14]

    Chamel, Nucl

    N. Chamel, Nucl. Phys. A 747, 109 (2005)

    work page 2005

  15. [15]

    Carter, N

    B. Carter, N. Chamel, and P. Haensel, Nuclear Physics A 759, 441 (2005)

    work page 2005

  16. [16]

    Carter, N

    B. Carter, N. Chamel, and P. Haensel, International Journal of Modern Physics D 15, 777 (2006)

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    Chamel, Nucl

    N. Chamel, Nucl. Phys. A 773, 263 (2006)

    work page 2006

  18. [18]

    Blaschke and N

    D. Blaschke and N. Chamel, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library , edited by L. Rezzolla, P. Pizzochero, D. I. Jones, N. Rea, and I. Vida˜ na (2018), vol. 457 of Astrophysics and Space Science Library, p. 337

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    C. J. Pethick, N. Chamel, and S. Reddy, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 186, 9 (2010)

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    Allard and N

    V. Allard and N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. C 108, 015801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Chamel, Phys

    N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. C 85, 035801 (2012)

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    Chamel, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 189, 328 (2017)

    N. Chamel, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 189, 328 (2017)

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Andersson, K

    N. Andersson, K. Glampedakis, W. C. G. Ho, and C. M. Espinoza, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 241103 (2012)

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    Chamel, Phys

    N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 011101 (2013)

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    Delsate, N

    T. Delsate, N. Chamel, N. G¨ urlebeck, A. F. Fantina, J. M. Pearson, and C. Ducoin, Phys. Rev. D 94, 023008 (2016)

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    Antonopoulou, B

    D. Antonopoulou, B. Haskell, and C. M. Espinoza, Reports on Progress in Physics 85, 126901 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    S. Zhou, E. G¨ ugercino˘ glu, J. Yuan, M. Ge, and C. Yu, Universe8, 641 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Martin and M

    N. Martin and M. Urban, Phys. Rev. C 94, 065801 (2016)

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    R. I. Epstein, ApJ 333, 880 (1988)

    work page 1988

  30. [30]

    A. D. Sedrakian, Astrophys. Space Sci. 236, 267 (1996)

    work page 1996

  31. [31]

    Magierski and A

    P. Magierski and A. Bulgac, Acta Physica Polonica B 35, 1203 (2004)

    work page 2004

  32. [32]

    Okihashi and M

    T. Okihashi and M. Matsuo, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2021, 023D03 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article-pdf/2021/2/023D03/36455177/ptaa174.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptaa174

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa174 2021

  33. [33]

    Watanabe and C

    G. Watanabe and C. J. Pethick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 062701 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Kashiwaba and T

    Y. Kashiwaba and T. Nakatsukasa, Phys. Rev. C 100, 035804 (2019). 37

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Sekizawa, S

    K. Sekizawa, S. Kobayashi, and M. Matsuo, Phys. Rev. C 105, 045807 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Yoshimura and K

    K. Yoshimura and K. Sekizawa, Phys. Rev. C 109, 065804 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Almirante and M

    G. Almirante and M. Urban, Phys. Rev. C 109, 045805 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Almirante and M

    G. Almirante and M. Urban, Phys. Rev. C 110, 065802 (2024), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.110.065802

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.110.065802 2024

  39. [39]

    Blaizot and G

    J. Blaizot and G. Ribka, Quantum Theory of Finite Systems (The MIT Press, 1986)

    work page 1986

  40. [40]

    Bulgac, Physica Status Solidi B Basic Research 256, 1800592 (2019)

    A. Bulgac, Physica Status Solidi B Basic Research 256, 1800592 (2019)

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    Bender, P.-H

    M. Bender, P.-H. Heenen, and P.-G. Reinhard, Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 121 (2003)

    work page 2003

  42. [42]

    J. M. Pearson and N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. C 105, 015803 (2022)

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Dobaczewski, H

    J. Dobaczewski, H. Flocard, and J. Treiner, Nucl. Phys. A 422, 103 (1984)

    work page 1984

  44. [44]

    Y. M. Engel, D. M. Brink, K. Goeke, S. J. Krieger, and D. Vautherin, Nucl. Phys. A 249, 215 (1975)

    work page 1975

  45. [45]

    Dobaczewski and J

    J. Dobaczewski and J. Dudek, Phys. Rev. C 52, 1827 (1995), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.52.1827

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.52.1827 1995

  46. [46]

    Allard and N

    V. Allard and N. Chamel, Universe 7, 470 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Kittel, Quantum Theory of Solids (John Wiley and Sons, 1966)

    C. Kittel, Quantum Theory of Solids (John Wiley and Sons, 1966)

    work page 1966

  48. [48]

    Chamel, S

    N. Chamel, S. Goriely, J. M. Pearson, and M. Onsi, Phys. Rev. C 81, 045804 (2010)

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    Minami and G

    Y. Minami and G. Watanabe, Physical Review Research 4, 033141 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    L. P. Pitaevskii, S. Stringari, and G. Orso, Phys. Rev. A 71, 053602 (2005), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.053602

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.71.053602 2005

  51. [51]

    M. Onsi, A. K. Dutta, H. Chatri, S. Goriely, N. Chamel, and J. M. Pearson, Phys. Rev. C 77, 065805 (2008)

    work page 2008

  52. [52]

    Chamel, S

    N. Chamel, S. Naimi, E. Khan, and J. Margueron, Phys. Rev. C 75, 055806 (2007)

    work page 2007

  53. [53]

    Shelley and A

    M. Shelley and A. Pastore, Universe 6 (2020), ISSN 2218-1997, URL https://www.mdpi. com/2218-1997/6/11/206

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    P¸ ecak, A

    D. P¸ ecak, A. Zdanowicz, N. Chamel, P. Magierski, and G. Wlaz lowski, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041054 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.14.041054

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.041054 2024

  55. [55]

    Magierski and P.-H

    P. Magierski and P.-H. Heenen, Phys. Rev. C 65, 045804 (2002), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.65.045804

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.65.045804 2002

  56. [56]

    G¨ ogelein and H

    P. G¨ ogelein and H. M¨ uther, Phys. Rev. C76, 024312 (2007), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.76.024312. 38

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.76.024312 2007

  57. [57]

    Schuetrumpf, G

    B. Schuetrumpf, G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, M. Afibuzzaman, and H. M. Aktulga, Phys. Rev. C 100, 045806 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.100.045806

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.100.045806 2019

  58. [58]

    W. G. Newton, S. Cantu, S. Wang, A. Stinson, M. A. Kaltenborn, and J. R. Stone, Phys. Rev. C 105, 025806 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.025806

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.105.025806 2022

  59. [59]

    Neutron specific heat in the crust of neutron stars from the nuclear band theory

    N. Chamel, J. Margueron, and E. Khan, Phys. Rev. C 79, 012801 (2009), 0812.4389

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  60. [60]

    L. G. Cao, U. Lombardo, C. W. Shen, and N. V. Giai, Phys. Rev. C 73, 014313 (2006)

    work page 2006

  61. [61]

    J. M. Pearson, N. Chamel, S. Goriely, and C. Ducoin, Phys. Rev. C 85, 065803 (2012)

    work page 2012

  62. [62]

    D. J. Chadi and M. L. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B 8, 5747 (1973)

    work page 1973

  63. [63]

    Hama and M

    J. Hama and M. Watanabe, Journal of Physics Condensed Matter 4, 4583 (1992)

    work page 1992

  64. [64]

    Methfessel and A

    M. Methfessel and A. T. Paxton, Phys. Rev. B 40, 3616 (1989)

    work page 1989

  65. [65]

    Gilat and L

    G. Gilat and L. J. Raubenheimer, Physical Review 144, 390 (1966)

    work page 1966

  66. [66]

    J. F. Janak, in Computational methods in band theory , edited by P. M. Marcus, J. F. Janak, and A. R. Williams (Plenum, New York, 1971), pp. 323–339

    work page 1971

  67. [67]

    Brack, C

    M. Brack, C. Guet, and H. B. H˚ akansson, Phys. Rep.123, 275 (1985)

    work page 1985

  68. [68]

    Sourie and N

    A. Sourie and N. Chamel, MNRAS 493, L98 (2020)

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    Allard and N

    V. Allard and N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. C 108, 045801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    Allard and N

    V. Allard and N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 181001 (2024), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.181001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.181001 2024

  71. [71]

    E. N. Economou, Green ’s Functions in Quantum Physics , vol. 7 (2006)

    work page 2006

  72. [72]

    A. A. Maradudin, E. W. Montroll, G. H. Weiss, R. Herman, and H. W. Milnes, Acad. Roy. de Belgique XIV, 1 (1960)

    work page 1960

  73. [73]

    G. N. Watson, The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics 1, 266 (1939)

    work page 1939

  74. [74]

    Baldereschi, Phys

    A. Baldereschi, Phys. Rev. B 7, 5212 (1973)

    work page 1973

  75. [75]

    Jelitto, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 30, 609 (1969)

    R. Jelitto, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 30, 609 (1969). 39

    work page 1969