Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 7 cited by

Building Neutron Stars with the MUSES Calculation Engine

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Building complete neutron star equations of state from three models, this paper shows that the smooth-matching variable changes the maximum mass by up to 3.73% and the 1.4-solar-mass radius by up to 9.21%.

desk verdict Useful open-source neutron-star EoS workflow with a genuinely new matching comparison, but the headline matching-systematic claim is inflated by a thermodynamically inconsistent matched EoS. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07902 v1 pith:KYSBMQS3 submitted 2025-02-11 nucl-th astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-phphysics.comp-ph

Mateus Reinke Pelicer , Nikolas Cruz-Camacho , Carlos Conde , David Friedenberg , Satyajit Roy , Ziyuan Zhang , T. Andrew Manning , Mark G. Alford
show 20 more authors
Alexander Clevinger Joaquin Grefa Roland Haas Alexander Haber Mauricio Hippert Jeremy W. Holt Johannes Jahan Micheal Kahangirwe Rajesh Kumar Jeffrey Peterson Hitansh Shah Andrew W. Steiner Hung Tan Yumu Yang Volodymyr Vovchenko Veronica Dexheimer Jorge Noronha Jaquelyn Noronha-Hostler Claudia Ratti Nicolás Yunes
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HEgr-qchep-phphysics.comp-ph MSC 85A1583C55 PACS 26.60.-c97.60.Jd
keywords neutronstarequationofstatesmoothEoSmatchingchiraleffectivefieldtheorymeanmodelcrustdensityfunctionalbulkviscosityI-Love-QrelationsMUSEScalculationengine
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

Building a complete equation of state for a neutron star out of separate models is not a neutral procedure: the paper shows that the choice of smooth matching variable shifts the predicted maximum mass by up to 3.73% and the radius of a 1.4-solar-mass star by up to 9.21%. The new modular calculation engine combines a crust model (Crust-DFT), chiral effective field theory valid around saturation density, and the chiral mean field model for the core, joining them with a hyperbolic-tangent interpolation in one of four thermodynamic variables: $P(\mu_B)$, $\varepsilon(n_B)$, $P(n_B)$, or $c_s^2(n_B)$. Matching in the speed of sound preserves $c_s^2$ but never rejoins the parent core-model pressure curve, while matching in pressure injects artificial bumps into $c_s^2$. The paper also reports the first flavor equilibration results (bulk viscosity and flavor relaxation rates) for chiral EFT and the chiral mean field model. The result matters because matching systematics of this size must be budgeted when translating X-ray and gravitational-wave observations into neutron star radius measurements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Synthesis module's hyperbolic-tangent interpolation, $Y(x) = Y^I(x) f_-(x) + Y^{II}(x) f_+(x)$ with $f_\pm(x) = \tfrac{1}{2}(1 \pm \tanh[(x-\bar{x})/\Gamma])$, applied to one of four thermodynamic variables: $P(\mu_B)$, $\varepsilon(n_B)$, $P(n_B)$, or $c_s^2(n_B)$. The choice of variable fixes which quantities are preserved and which must be recovered through the zero-temperature Gibbs-Duhem relation $P + \varepsilon = n_B \mu_B$, producing correction terms such as $\Delta n_B = -g(\mu_B)(P^I - P^{II})$ for the $P(\mu_B)$ case and an integral correction for the $P(n_B)$ case. The completed EoS is fed to the QLIMR solver, which integrates the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations and the Hartle-Thorne slow-rotation and tidal perturbation scheme to yield mass, radius, moment of inertia, quadrupole moment, and tidal Love number. The Flavor Equilibration module computes the equilibrium proton fraction, the isothermal flavor relaxation rate, and the static bulk viscosity from the direct and modified Urca process rates.

What would settle it

Take a single known equation of state, split it into a low-density and a high-density piece, rejoin the pieces with each of the four matching variables, and recompute the mass-radius curve: if the reconstructed maximum mass and the 1.4-solar-mass radius match the original to well under one percent for all four variables, the matching systematic as reported would shrink to a small effect; if the $c_s^2(n_B)$ reconstruction fails to recover the original pressure-energy-density curve, that confirms the 9.21% claim is driven by an internally inconsistent matched EoS.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is quantitative: for complete crust-to-core equations of state built by smoothly matching Crust-DFT, chiral EFT, and CMF++ in their overlapping regimes of validity, the choice of matching variable changes the maximum neutron star mass by up to 3.73% and the radius of a $1.4\,M_\odot$ star by up to 9.21%, with the radius the most affected observable. The matching is a tanh blend over a user-chosen midpoint and width, and each variable preserves a different thermodynamic relation while distorting others; the $c_s^2(n_B)$ case preserves the speed of sound but, because its integration starts where pressures are not identical, never returns to the parent CMF++ $P(\varepsilon)$. The paper further claims the first flavor equilibration calculation for chiral EFT and the chiral mean field model, finding static bulk viscosities around $10^{24}$--$10^{27}$ MeV$^3$ and isothermal flavor relaxation times of tens of milliseconds below the direct Urca threshold, dropping below a millisecond once the proton fraction crosses it for the CMF model. Finally, it shows that the quasi-universal I-Love-Q relations remain approximately equation-of-state independent across all matching schemes.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on the assumption that a hand-chosen hyperbolic-tangent blend between two models in their overlap region yields a physically representative equation of state; this assumption is known to fail for the speed-of-sound matching, whose integrated pressure never rejoins the parent core-model curve, and that internally inconsistent equation of state is still included in the radius comparison.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Smooth matching between models is a genuine systematic for neutron star observables: radius inference at the few-percent level must budget for it.
  • Matching in $c_s^2(n_B)$ preserves the speed of sound but sacrifices agreement with the parent $P(\varepsilon)$; matching in $P$ introduces artificial bumps in $c_s^2$ that could mimic or mask genuine structure relevant to gravitational-wave observables.
  • Quasi-universal I-Love-Q relations hold to within a fraction of a percent regardless of matching scheme, so tests of general relativity using them are robust to this systematic.
  • Bulk viscosity and relaxation times differ sharply between chiral EFT and CMF models, implying the out-of-equilibrium response of merger remnants is model-dependent.
  • Because the platform is modular and open-source, any layer can be swapped for an external table and the observables re-run, making the matching systematic auditable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The headline 9.21% radius spread includes the $c_s^2(n_B)$ matched EoS, which the paper itself notes never rejoins the parent CMF++ $P(\varepsilon)$; if that internally inconsistent EoS is excluded, the matching-related radius systematic is likely smaller, so a cleaner comparison across only thermodynamically consistent matchings would sharpen the claim.
  • An immediate test of the matching systematic is a self-consistency check: take a single EoS, split it into low- and high-density pieces, re-match them with each of the four variables, and check whether the original mass-radius curve is recovered; the deviation directly quantifies the artificial part of the spread.
  • As observational radius uncertainties shrink toward a few percent, matching-systematic bands of this size should be folded into Bayesian EoS inference rather than treated as negligible.
  • The paper's T = 0 EoS combined with a T = 2 MeV input for the flavor rates could be validated once finite-temperature EoS tables become available in the same modules, giving a quantified error on the relaxation-time results.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents the MUSES Calculation Engine, a modular workflow system that combines three neutron-star EoS modules (Crust-DFT, chiral EFT, and CMF++), a Lepton module, a Synthesis module for matching EoSs, and two observable modules (QLIMR and Flavor Equilibration). The authors construct crust-to-core EoSs using four smooth-matching prescriptions in different thermodynamic variables, solve the TOV and Hartle-Thorne equations plus tidal perturbations, and report that the choice of matching variable changes the maximum neutron star mass by up to 3.73% and the radius of a 1.4 solar-mass star by up to 9.21%. They also verify the quasi-universal I-Love-Q relations for their matched EoSs and present, for the first time, flavor equilibration quantities (bulk viscosity, relaxation time, charge fraction) for the chiral EFT and chiral mean field models. The paper additionally releases open-source software modules and computational notebooks for reproducing the results.

Significance. If the central quantitative claims are properly qualified, this is a useful contribution: it provides an open, modular, reproducible pipeline for building complete neutron star EoSs from well-established theory modules, and it systematically compares matching procedures, which is an often-overlooked systematic. The QLIMR and Synthesis implementations are standard and appear to be carefully validated, and the paper is honest about many of its limitations, including the artificial structure introduced by several matching methods. The flavor equilibration results extend existing microscopic rate calculations to two widely used EoS models, which is of interest for neutron star merger applications. However, the headline numerical claim is currently overstated because one of the four matching methods included in the spread produces an EoS that the paper itself shows never returns to the parent high-density EoS; this issue must be resolved before the central quantitative statement can be accepted as reported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section V, Table VI, and Section III E 3.] The headline claim in Section V that the matching variable changes R_1.4 by up to 9.21% and M_max by 3.73% is not supported by the subset of matching methods that actually produce thermodynamically consistent interpolations. As acknowledged in Section III E 3 and shown in Fig. 10(a), the c_s^2(nB) matched EoS never returns to the parent CMF++ P(epsilon) because Eq. (52) integrates upward from a starting point where the two parent EoSs have different pressures; the resulting high-density branch is therefore an artificial EoS rather than a smooth match between the parent models. Table VI confirms that this method produces the outlier radius of 12.43 km (c_s^2, theta_b), whereas the three consistent methods span 13.15-13.69 km, about 4%, and the M_max spread excluding c_s^2 is below 1%. I request that the headline percentages be recomputed using only the methods that satisfy the boundary condition of returning to the parent EoS outside the matching window, and that the c_s^2 result be reported separately as an illustration of the consequences of violating that condition.
  2. [Section IV B and Fig. 17.] The flavor equilibration results are presented as quantitative first-time predictions, but they are obtained by combining T=0 EoS tables with a fixed T=2 MeV input for the rates, without a quantified uncertainty for this approximation. The text in Section IV B asserts that the EoS quantities required by the module are nearly T-independent for T below about 5 MeV, but this does not quantify the error in the strongly T-dependent quantities gamma and zeta_0 that are the main outputs shown in Fig. 17. Since the claimed novelty includes the bulk viscosity and relaxation time values, the paper should either add a consistency test over a range of low temperatures (for example, T = 0.5, 2, and 5 MeV) or explicitly characterize these results as order-of-magnitude estimates whose systematic uncertainty from the T=0 EoS input has not been assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section V.] The abstract states that matching in different thermodynamic variables changes masses and radii 'never beyond a few percent difference,' while Section V reports a 9.21% radius variation; these statements should be reconciled after the inconsistent c_s^2 case is separated out.
  2. [Equations (65)-(68).] The units of the baryon density midpoints in Eqs. (65) and (66) are printed as fm^{-1}; they should read fm^{-3} to be consistent with the values such as 0.16 fm^{-3} used elsewhere.
  3. [Table I.] The column numbering in Table I jumps from 5 to 7 and then repeats 7; the strangeness density column should be numbered 6.
  4. [Reference [44].] The name in reference [44] is garbled; it should read 'Faà di Bruno' rather than 'Fa´ a di Bruno.'
  5. [Figure 16 caption.] The caption of Fig. 16 appears to contain a word-processing error: it says matching 'between Crust-DFT+chiEFT and chiEFT' and then 'between chiEFT and CMF,' but the text and the figure describe matching Crust-DFT to chiEFT and then the combined EoS to CMF++; the caption should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper's principal results are forward-modeled outputs from independent EoS modules, standard matching procedures, and previously derived transport rates; the documented limitations are correctness/robustness concerns, not circular reductions.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the three EoS modules (Crust-DFT, chiEFT, CMF++) through the Lepton charge-neutrality/beta-equilibrium step, the Synthesis smooth matching, and the QLIMR and Flavor Equilibration observables. At no point is a target observable fed back into the construction of an input. The hyperbolic-tangent matching parameters (bar-x, Gamma) are chosen by hand from overlap regions and stability checks, not fitted to reproduce the reported masses, radii, or tidal deformabilities; Table VI reports forward model output across a parameter sweep. The flavor equilibration results are computed from the microscopic Urca rates of Refs. [58,59] using EoS inputs from chiEFT and CMF++; the rates are independent of the EoSs being tested, so the claim of 'first results' is not a renamed fit. Self-citations to the MUSES codes (CMF++ ref. [16], Crust-DFT refs. [26,27], Flavor Eq. refs. [58,59], QLIMR refs. [61-64]) are normal module provenance and are externally benchmarked or based on established formalisms; none is used as a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternatives. The manuscript itself flags the two genuine weaknesses, and both are correctness/robustness issues rather than circularity: Sec. III E 3 and Fig. 10(a) state that the c_s^2(nB) matched EoS 'never returns to the original P(epsilon)' because Eq. (52) starts from a point where the parent pressures differ, making that one matching variant thermodynamically inconsistent; and Sec. IV B states that a T=0 EoS table is combined with a T=2 MeV input for the rates without quantified error. These are openly documented limitations of one interpolation scheme and one low-temperature approximation, and they affect the strength of the headline percentages, but they do not make any derived quantity equal to an input by construction. The I-Love-Q check is a verification of a known quasi-universal relation, not a claim that the relation is derived from the matching procedure. No step satisfies the required standard of exhibiting Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper is therefore best assessed as self-contained against the circularity failure modes considered here, with the caveats above noted as scientific robustness concerns.

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

The central scientific comparison depends on several hand-chosen inputs: matching midpoints and widths, two parameter variants per EoS model, and a temperature assignment for flavor equilibration. No new physical entities are introduced. The models themselves bring established free parameters that are treated as fixed inputs rather than fitted inside the paper.

free parameters (6)
  • Smooth matching midpoint x_bar and width Gamma = Crust-DFT+chiEFT: P(muB) (950, 10), epsilon(nB) (0.09, 0.03), P(nB) (0.10, 0.02), c_s^2 (0.065, 0.01); chiEFT+CMF: nB…
    Chosen by hand to ensure stability and to place the transition near saturation; the observable spread reported in the paper depends on these choices.
  • Crust-DFT parameter sets = Fiducial and Large Mmax
    Two representative parameter sets from the Crust-DFT posterior, influencing the charge fraction and high-density stiffness.
  • Chiral EFT cutoff Lambda = 414 and 450 MeV
    Regulator cutoff variations used to bracket uncertainty; they change the speed of sound and the proton fraction.
  • CMF++ coupling scheme = C4
    Selected because prior work identified it as the most accurate neutron star description among the available CMF parametrizations.
  • Flavor equilibration temperature input = T = 2 MeV
    A T=0 EoS table is supplied, but T=2 MeV is specified in the input to generate non-zero rates; the paper asserts reasonableness without quantifying the error.
  • Universal relation fit coefficients = See Table IV
    Fifth-order polynomial fit used as the reference curve for I-Love-Q deviation plots; it is a fitting device, not a physical parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Beta equilibrium with free-streaming neutrinos, so mu_nu = 0 and mu_S = 0.
    Invoked in Section III D 2 to reduce the EoS from 2D to 1D; appropriate for cold isolated neutron stars, not for merger or trapped-neutrino conditions.
  • domain assumption Chiral EFT is valid for roughly 0.5 to 2 times nuclear saturation density, and CMF++ is valid above saturation, with an overlapping region used for matching.
    Used to justify the matching range in Section III E 3; the paper itself notes the exact boundaries are uncertain.
  • domain assumption A T=0 EoS can be used to compute flavor equilibration at T less than about 5 MeV.
    Stated in Section IV B as the basis for computing bulk viscosity and relaxation rates at T=2 MeV from T=0 EoS tables.
  • domain assumption Flavor equilibration is computed for homogeneous neutrinoless npe matter with direct and modified Urca processes only.
    Explicit in Section IV B; excludes hyperons, quarks, muons, and trapped neutrinos, so the results apply only to the nucleonic EoSs.
  • domain assumption Hartle-Thorne slow-rotation and static tidal perturbation theory are valid for the neutron stars studied.
    Used throughout Section IV A; assumes a barotropic EoS, uniform rotation, unmagnetized stars, and small spin parameter epsilon.
  • standard math Standard thermodynamic relations, Gibbs-Duhem relation, and TOV equations are used without formal proof.
    These are background results relied on throughout Sections III and IV; no formalization is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Building Neutron Stars with the MUSES Calculation Engine." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYSBMQS3

@misc{pith2026250207902,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Building Neutron Stars with the MUSES Calculation Engine},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYSBMQS3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07902}
}
abstract

Exploring the equation of state of dense matter is an essential part of interpreting the observable properties of neutron stars. We present here the first results for dense matter in the zero-temperature limit generated by the MUSES Calculation Engine, a composable workflow management system that orchestrates calculation and data processing stages comprising a collection of software modules designed within the MUSES framework. The modules presented in this work calculate equations of state using algorithms spanning three different theories/models: (1) Crust Density Functional Theory, valid starting at low densities, (2) Chiral Effective Field Theory, valid around saturation density, and (3) the Chiral Mean Field model, valid beyond saturation density. Lepton contributions are added through the Lepton module to each equation of state, ensuring charge neutrality and the possibility of $\beta$-equilibrium. Using the Synthesis module, we match the three equations of state using different thermodynamic variables and different methods. We then couple the complete equation of state to a novel full-general-relativity solver (QLIMR) module that calculates neutron star properties. We find that the matching performed using different thermodynamic variables affects differently the range obtained for neutron star masses and radii (although never beyond a few percent difference). We also investigate the universality of equation of state-independent relations for our matched stars. Finally, for the first time, we use the Flavor Equilibration module to estimate bulk viscosity and flavor relaxation charge fraction and rates (at low temperature) for Chiral Effective Field Theory and the Chiral Mean Field model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07902 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Range of validity for MUSES EoS modules in this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Workflows within the CE that create an ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Workflows within the CE that create (Crust-DFT) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Binding energy per nucleon as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Cartoon showing the layers of two neutron stars with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Average nuclear mass number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Left: Charge fraction as a function of baryon density. Right: Pressure as a function of baryon chemical potential. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Top: Particle densities as a function of baryon density for Crust-DFT (left), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Equation of state for the CMF++ module including [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Pressure as a function of energy density for EoSs smoothly matched using different thermodynamic variables: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Speed of sound squared as a function of baryon density for EoSs smoothly matched using different thermodynamic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Mass-radius diagrams obtained from QLIMR. Solid lines represent the original EoSs, while dashed lines show results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Panel (a) shows regions made up by the mass-radius lines obtained from QLIMR and shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Quasi-universal relations from QLIMR module for the different smoothed matched EoS from the different panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Panel (a) shows the total mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Neutron-star slice produced using the different EoS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. The left panel shows the static bulk viscosity, while the right panel show the isothermal flavor relaxation rate using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Neural-Accelerated Bayesian Calibration of Chiral Mean-Field Models to Nuclear Saturation and Vacuum Properties

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A neural-accelerated Bayesian calibration of the chiral mean-field model shows that nuclear vacuum and saturation data constrain combinations of couplings while leaving individual parameters and neutron-star predictio...

  2. Highly-accurate neutron star modeling in the Hartle-Thorne Approximation

    gr-qc 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The Hartle-Thorne slow-rotation expansion is extended to seventh order, yielding analytical exterior metrics and multipole moments up to S7 for isolated neutron stars.

  3. Microscopic constraints for the equation of state and structure of neutron stars: a Bayesian model mixing framework

    nucl-th 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Bayesian model mixing framework using Gaussian processes extends chiral EFT and pQCD constraints to neutron star matter and demonstrates kernel-dependent equation of state and mass-radius predictions.

  4. An Overview of the MUSES Calculation Engine and How It Can Be Used to Describe Neutron Stars

    nucl-th 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Matching the crust and core equations of state with different smooth interpolation functions has only a modest effect on the predicted mass, radius, and tidal deformability of neutron stars, provided the matching occu...

  5. Toward a Unified Understanding of the Dense Matter Equation of State

    nucl-th 2025-11 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review of three Bayesian/computational frameworks for combining heavy-ion and astrophysical constraints on the dense-matter equation of state, plus a proposed unified integration workflow.

  6. Nuclear matter equation of state and astrophysics

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional

    A review of multimessenger constraints on the neutron-star equation of state, arguing composition remains undetermined and advocating a multidimensional EoS framework and the author-affiliated MUSES software.

  7. The equation of state for neutron stars

    nucl-th 2026-07 unverdicted

    A textbook-style review of the neutron-star equation of state covering the models, experimental and observational constraints, and open questions, with no new result claimed or derived.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

181 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Every point along any curve represents a single, sta- ble, neutron star solution

    Results from QLIMR using different matching methods Figure 12 shows neutron star sequences produced by QLIMR using different, complete (crust to core) EoSs. Every point along any curve represents a single, sta- ble, neutron star solution. Each panel shows (smooth) matching using a different thermodynamic variable Y (x) 8 This precision is important, as sm...

  2. [2]

    The spin-correction to the non- rotating (TOV) mass at O(ϵ2) is given by Eq

    Mass-radius spin correction of a MUSES neutron star When a neutron star rotates, its rotational energy con- tributes to its total mass and the radial distance from the center to the surface increases at the equator, as first shown in [21, 22, 147]. The spin-correction to the non- rotating (TOV) mass at O(ϵ2) is given by Eq. (61) and the equatorial radius ...

  3. [3]

    The size of each layer of a neutron star strongly depends on the maximum central density, which in turn produces a given mass and radius of the star

    Slice of a MUSES neutron star Figure 16 shows an example of a non-rotating neutron star slice built when smoothly matching in c2 s (with a particular set of parameters described in the figure label). The size of each layer of a neutron star strongly depends on the maximum central density, which in turn produces a given mass and radius of the star. In othe...

  4. [4]

    The equilibrium value of the proton fraction Y eq p , defined by Γ I (T, nB, Yeq p ) = 0 [118]

  5. [5]

    Default input format for the Flavor Equilibration module in MUSES

    The (isothermal) flavor relaxation rate, which is Column Quantity Units 1 Temperature ( T ) MeV 2 Baryon chemical potential ( µB) MeV 3 Strange chemical potential ( µS) MeV 4 Electron chemical potential ( µe) MeV 5 Baryon density ( nB) fm −3 7 Strangeness density ( nS) fm −3 7 Charge density ( nQ) fm −3 8 Energy density ( ε) MeV fm −3 9 Pressure ( P ) MeV...

  6. [6]

    The static bulk viscosity ζ0 evaluated at Yp = Y eq p (nB, T), from which one can obtain the full fre- quency dependence of the bulk viscosity ζ(ω) = ζ0 γ2 γ2 + ω2 . (73)

  7. [7]

    For a derivation and in-depth discussion of these quanti- ties, see Refs

    The static isothermal incompressibility K, from 30 which the damping time τd(ω) for low-amplitude density oscillations of frequency ω can be obtained. For a derivation and in-depth discussion of these quanti- ties, see Refs. [58, 165, 166]. The required input consists of a set of configuration parameters and a 3D EoS table. The configuration pa- rameters ...

  8. [8]

    G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, and T. Takatsuka, From hadrons to quarks in neutron stars: a review, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 056902 (2018), arXiv:1707.04966 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 181 references
  1. [9]

    B. K. Harrison, K. S. Thorn, M. Wakano, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation Theory and Gravitational Col- lapse (University of Chicago Press, 1965)

    1965

  2. [10]

    G. Baym, C. Pethick, and P. Sutherland, The Ground state of matter at high densities: Equation of state and stellar models, Astrophys. J. 170, 299 (1971)

    1971

  3. [11]

    G. Baym, C. Pethick, and D. Pines, Superfluidity in Neutron Stars, Nature 224, 673 (1969)

    1969

  4. [12]

    D. D. Ivanenko and D. F. Kurdgelaidze, Hypothesis con- cerning quark stars, Astrophysics 1, 251 (1965)

    1965

  5. [13]

    Ivanenko and D

    D. Ivanenko and D. F. Kurdgelaidze, Remarks on quark stars, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 2, 13 (1969)

    1969

  6. [14]

    J. C. Collins and M. J. Perry, Superdense Matter: Neu- trons Or Asymptotically Free Quarks?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 1353 (1975)

    1975

  7. [15]

    Burrows and J

    A. Burrows and J. M. Lattimer, The birth of neutron stars, Astrophys. J. 307, 178 (1986)

    1986

  8. [16]

    Janka, Explosion Mechanisms of Core-Collapse Supernovae, Ann

    H.-T. Janka, Explosion Mechanisms of Core-Collapse Supernovae, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62, 407 (2012), arXiv:1206.2503 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Philipsen, The QCD equation of state from the lattice, Prog

    O. Philipsen, The QCD equation of state from the lattice, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 70, 55 (2013), arXiv:1207.5999 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Equa- tions of state for supernovae and compact stars, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015007 (2017), arXiv:1610.03361 [astro- ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Typel, M

    S. Typel, M. Oertel, and T. Kl¨ ahn, CompOSE Comp- Star online supernova equations of state harmonis- ing the concert of nuclear physics and astrophysics compose.obspm.fr, Phys. Part. Nucl. 46, 633 (2015), arXiv:1307.5715 [astro-ph.SR]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Typel et al

    S. Typel et al. (CompOSE Core Team), CompOSE Reference Manual, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 221 (2022), arXiv:2203.03209 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    CompOSE: CompStar Online Supernova Equations of state website

  14. [22]

    Dexheimer, M

    V. Dexheimer, M. Mancini, M. Oertel, C. Providˆ encia, L. Tolos, and S. Typel, Quick Guides for Use of the CompOSE Data Base, Particles 5, 346 (2022), arXiv:2311.04715 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cruz-Camacho, R

    N. Cruz-Camacho, R. Kumar, M. Reinke Pelicer, J. Peterson, T. A. Manning, R. Haas, V. Dexheimer, and J. Noronha-Hostler, Phase Stability in the 3- Dimensional Open-source Code for the Chiral mean- field Model (2024), arXiv:2409.06837 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    R. C. Tolman, Static solutions of Einstein’s field equa- tions for spheres of fluid, Phys. Rev. 55, 364 (1939)

    1939

  17. [25]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, On massive neu- tron cores, Phys. Rev. 55, 374 (1939)

    1939

  18. [26]

    Hinderer, Tidal Love numbers of neutron stars, As- trophys

    T. Hinderer, Tidal Love numbers of neutron stars, As- trophys. J. 677, 1216 (2008), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 697, 964 (2009)], arXiv:0711.2420 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    E. E. Flanagan and T. Hinderer, Constraining neutron star tidal Love numbers with gravitational wave detec- tors, Phys. Rev. D 77, 021502 (2008), arXiv:0709.1915 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J. B. Hartle, Slowly rotating relativistic stars. 1. Equa- tions of structure, Astrophys. J. 150, 1005 (1967)

    1967

  21. [29]

    J. B. Hartle and K. S. Thorne, Slowly Rotating Rela- tivistic Stars. II. Models for Neutron Stars and Super- massive Stars, Astrophys. J. 153, 807 (1968)

    1968

  22. [30]

    Vovchenko and H

    V. Vovchenko and H. Stoecker, Thermal-FIST: A pack- age for heavy-ion collisions and hadronic equation of state, Comput. Phys. Commun. 244, 295 (2019), arXiv:1901.05249 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    io/ (2024)

    MUSES Project Website, https://musesframework. io/ (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    T. A. Manning, MUSES Calculation Engine v1.0.0 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    X. Du, A. W. Steiner, and J. W. Holt, Hot and Dense Homogeneous Nucleonic Matter Constrained by Obser- vations, Experiment, and Theory, Phys. Rev. C 99, 025803 (2019), arXiv:1802.09710 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    X. Du, A. W. Steiner, and J. W. Holt, Hot and dense matter equation of state probability distributions for astrophysical simulations, Phys. Rev. C 105, 035803 (2022), arXiv:2107.06697 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Steiner and S

    A. Steiner and S. Roy, Crust-DFT module v1.0.0 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Roy, Crust DFT EoS tables

    S. Roy, Crust DFT EoS tables

  29. [37]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces, Phys. Rept. 503, 1 (2011), arXiv:1105.2919 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. W. Holt, and C. Wellenhofer, Chiral Effective Field Theory and the High-Density Nuclear Equation of State, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 403 (2021), arXiv:2101.01709 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Friedenberg and J

    D. Friedenberg and J. W. Holt, Chiral EFT Equation of State module (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Wellenhofer, J

    C. Wellenhofer, J. W. Holt, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Nuclear thermodynamics from chiral low-momentum interactions, Phys. Rev. C 89, 064009 (2014), arXiv:1404.2136 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Wellenhofer, J

    C. Wellenhofer, J. W. Holt, and N. Kaiser, Thermody- namics of isospin-asymmetric nuclear matter from chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C 92, 015801 (2015), arXiv:1504.00177 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Dexheimer and S

    V. Dexheimer and S. Schramm, Proto-Neutron and Neutron Stars in a Chiral SU(3) Model, Astrophys. J. 683, 943 (2008), arXiv:0802.1999 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  35. [43]

    V. A. Dexheimer and S. Schramm, A Novel Approach to Model Hybrid Stars, Phys. Rev. C 81, 045201 (2010), arXiv:0901.1748 [astro-ph.SR]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [44]

    C. N. Cruz Camacho, R. Kumar, M. Pelicer, T. Man- 33 ning, R. Haas, V. Dexheimer, and J. Noronha-Hostler, Chiral mean field model module (cmf++) (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Pelicer, Lepton module (2025)

    M. Pelicer, Lepton module (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Noronha-Hostler, P

    J. Noronha-Hostler, P. Parotto, C. Ratti, and J. M. Stafford, Lattice-based equation of state at finite baryon number, electric charge and strangeness chem- ical potentials, Phys. Rev. C 100, 064910 (2019), arXiv:1902.06723 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Jahan, H

    J. Jahan, H. Shah, P. Parotto, J. M. Karthein, J. Noronha-Hostler, and C. Ratti, 4D Taylor-expanded lattice (BQS) module v1.0.0 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Bors´ anyi, Z

    S. Bors´ anyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, R. Kara, S. D. Katz, P. Parotto, A. P´ asztor, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szab´ o, Lattice QCD equation of state at finite chemical poten- tial from an alternative expansion scheme, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 232001 (2021), arXiv:2102.06660 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kahangirwe, S

    M. Kahangirwe, S. A. Bass, E. Bratkovskaya, J. Jahan, P. Moreau, P. Parotto, D. Price, C. Ratti, O. Soloveva, and M. Stephanov, Finite density QCD equation of state: Critical point and lattice-based T’ expansion, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094046 (2024), arXiv:2402.08636 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Kahangirwe, J

    M. Kahangirwe, J. Jahan, P. Parotto, M. Stephanov, and C. Ratti, Ising 2D T’-Expansion Scheme (Ising- 2DTExS) module v1.0.0 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Vovchenko, Correcting event-by-event fluctuations in heavy-ion collisions for exact global conservation laws with the generalized subensemble acceptance method, Phys

    V. Vovchenko, Correcting event-by-event fluctuations in heavy-ion collisions for exact global conservation laws with the generalized subensemble acceptance method, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014903 (2022), arXiv:2106.13775 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    J. M. Maldacena, The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    1998 arXiv

  45. [53]

    DeWolfe, S

    O. DeWolfe, S. S. Gubser, and C. Rosen, A holo- graphic critical point, Phys. Rev. D 83, 086005 (2011), arXiv:1012.1864 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Critelli, J

    R. Critelli, J. Noronha, J. Noronha-Hostler, I. Por- tillo, C. Ratti, and R. Rougemont, Critical point in the phase diagram of primordial quark-gluon matter from black hole physics, Phys. Rev. D 96, 096026 (2017), arXiv:1706.00455 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Grefa, J

    J. Grefa, J. Noronha, J. Noronha-Hostler, I. Portillo, C. Ratti, and R. Rougemont, Hot and dense quark-gluon plasma thermodynamics from holographic black holes, Phys. Rev. D 104, 034002 (2021), arXiv:2102.12042 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Rougemont, J

    R. Rougemont, J. Grefa, M. Hippert, J. Noronha, J. Noronha-Hostler, I. Portillo, and C. Ratti, Hot QCD phase diagram from holographic Ein- stein–Maxwell–Dilaton models, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 135, 104093 (2024), arXiv:2307.03885 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Hippert, J

    M. Hippert, J. Grefa, T. A. Manning, J. Noronha, J. Noronha-Hostler, I. Portillo Vazquez, C. Ratti, R. Rougemont, and M. Trujillo, Bayesian location of the QCD critical point from a holographic perspective, Phys. Rev. D 110, 094006 (2024), arXiv:2309.00579 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Yang and M

    Y. Yang and M. Hippert, Holographic equation of state module v1.0.0 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    Hippert, J

    M. Hippert, J. Grefa, T. A. Manning, J. Noronha, J. Noronha-Hostler, I. Portillo Vazquez, C. Ratti, R. Rougemont, and M. Trujillo, Bayesian analysis of the equation of state of quantum chromodynamics from a holographic model, 10.5281/zenodo.13830379 (2024)

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    Pelicer, Equation of state synthesis (2025)

    M. Pelicer, Equation of state synthesis (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Lee, Lattice Effective Field Theory Simulations of Nuclei (2025), arXiv:2501.03303 [nucl-th]

    D. Lee, Lattice Effective Field Theory Simulations of Nuclei (2025), arXiv:2501.03303 [nucl-th]

    2025

  54. [62]

    Plumberg et al

    C. Plumberg et al. , BSQ Conserved Charges in Rela- tivistic Viscous Hydrodynamics solved with Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (2024), arXiv:2405.09648 [nucl- th]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    F. G. Gardim, D. Almaalol, J. Salinas San Mart ´ ın, C. Plumberg, and J. Noronha-Hostler, Unlocking ”im- prints” of conserved charges in the initial state of heavy- ion collisions (2024), arXiv:2411.00590 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Kumar et al

    R. Kumar et al. (MUSES), Theoretical and experimen- tal constraints for the equation of state of dense and hot matter, Living Rev. Rel. 27, 3 (2024), arXiv:2303.17021 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    M. G. Alford, A. Haber, and Z. Zhang, Isospin equi- libration in neutron star mergers, Phys. Rev. C 109, 055803 (2024), arXiv:2306.06180 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    M. G. Alford, A. Haber, and Z. Zhang, Beyond modi- fied Urca: The nucleon width approximation for flavor- changing processes in dense matter, Phys. Rev. C 110, L052801 (2024), arXiv:2406.13717 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Alford and Z

    M. Alford and Z. Zhang, Muses flavor equilibration module (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    D. G. Ravenhall and C. J. Pethick, Neutron Star Mo- ments of Inertia, Astrophys. J. 424, 846 (1994)

    1994

  61. [69]

    Bejger and P

    M. Bejger and P. Haensel, Moments of inertia for neu- tron and strange stars: Limits derived for the Crab pul- sar, Astron. Astrophys. 396, 917 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0209151

    2002

  62. [70]

    K. Yagi, L. C. Stein, G. Pappas, N. Yunes, and T. A. Apostolatos, Why I-Love-Q: Explaining why universal- ity emerges in compact objects, Phys. Rev. D90, 063010 (2014), arXiv:1406.7587 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  63. [71]

    C. A. Conde Ocazionez, H. Tan, and N. Yunes, QLIMR module v1.0.0 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    N. Yao, A. Sorensen, V. Dexheimer, and J. Noronha- Hostler, Structure in the speed of sound: From neutron stars to heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 109, 065803 (2024), arXiv:2311.18819 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    A. W. Steiner, M. Hempel, and T. Fischer, Core- collapse supernova equations of state based on neu- tron star observations, Astrophys. J. 774, 17 (2013), arXiv:1207.2184 [astro-ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  66. [74]

    e. a. Roy, Satyajit, Crust DFT (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    M¨ oller, A

    P. M¨ oller, A. J. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, Nuclear ground-state masses and deformations: FRDM(2012), Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 109-110, 1 (2016), arXiv:1508.06294 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  68. [76]

    C. J. Horowitz and A. Schwenk, Cluster formation and the virial equation of state of low-density nu- clear matter, Nucl. Phys. A 776, 55 (2006), arXiv:nucl- th/0507033

    2006

  69. [77]

    M. N. Saha, Liii. ionization in the solar chromo- sphere, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosoph- ical Magazine and Journal of Science 40, 472 (1920), https://doi.org/10.1080/14786441008636148

    1920 doi

  70. [78]

    Kortelainen, J

    M. Kortelainen, J. McDonnell, W. Nazarewicz, E. Olsen, P.-G. Reinhard, J. Sarich, N. Schunck, S. M. Wild, D. Davesne, J. Erler, and A. Pastore, Nuclear en- ergy density optimization: Shell structure, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054314 (2014)

    2014

  71. [79]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meissner, Modern Theory of Nuclear Forces, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 34 1773 (2009), arXiv:0811.1338 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  72. [80]

    S. K. Bogner, A. Schwenk, R. J. Furnstahl, and A. Nogga, Is nuclear matter perturbative with low- momentum interactions?, Nucl. Phys. A 763, 59 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0504043

    2005 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Friedenberg and J

    D. Friedenberg and J. W. Holt, Chiral EFT EoS (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    Weinberg, Nuclear forces from chiral Lagrangians, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Nuclear forces from chiral Lagrangians, Phys. Lett. B 251, 288 (1990)

    1990

  75. [83]

    Coraggio, A

    L. Coraggio, A. Covello, A. Gargano, N. Itaco, D. R. Entem, T. T. S. Kuo, and R. Machleidt, Low momen- tum nucleon-nucleon interactions and shell-model cal- culations, Phys. Rev. C 75, 024311 (2007), arXiv:nucl- th/0701065

    2007

  76. [84]

    Coraggio, J

    L. Coraggio, J. W. Holt, N. Itaco, R. Machleidt, and F. Sammarruca, Reduced regulator dependence of neutron-matter predictions with perturbative chi- ral interactions, Phys. Rev. C 87, 014322 (2013), arXiv:1209.5537 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  77. [85]

    J. W. Holt, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Density-dependent effective nucleon-nucleon interaction from chiral three- nucleon forces, Phys. Rev. C 81, 024002 (2010), arXiv:0910.1249 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  78. [86]

    J. W. Holt, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Nuclear chiral dynamics and thermodynamics, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 73, 35 (2013), arXiv:1304.6350 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  79. [87]

    J. W. Holt, M. Kawaguchi, and N. Kaiser, Imple- menting chiral three-body forces in terms of medium- dependent two-body forces, Front. in Phys. 8, 100 (2020), arXiv:1912.06055 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Lim and J

    Y. Lim and J. W. Holt, Neutron star tidal deforma- bilities constrained by nuclear theory and experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 062701 (2018), arXiv:1803.02803 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Y. Lim, J. W. Holt, and R. J. Stahulak, Predicting the moment of inertia of pulsar J0737-3039A from Bayesian modeling of the nuclear equation of state, Phys. Rev. C 100, 035802 (2019), arXiv:1810.10992 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Lim and J

    Y. Lim and J. W. Holt, Bayesian modeling of the nu- clear equation of state for neutron star tidal deforma- bilities and GW170817, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 209 (2019), arXiv:1902.05502 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Kohn and J

    W. Kohn and J. M. Luttinger, Ground-State Energy of a Many-Fermion System, Phys. Rev. 118, 41 (1960)

    1960

  84. [92]

    J. M. Luttinger and J. C. Ward, Ground state energy of a many fermion system. 2., Phys. Rev.118, 1417 (1960)

    1960

  85. [93]

    Wellenhofer, J

    C. Wellenhofer, J. W. Holt, and N. Kaiser, Divergence of the isospin-asymmetry expansion of the nuclear equa- tion of state in many-body perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. C 93, 055802 (2016), arXiv:1603.02935 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  86. [94]

    J. W. Holt and N. Kaiser, Equation of state of nuclear and neutron matter at third-order in perturbation the- ory from chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C 95, 034326 (2017), arXiv:1612.04309 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  87. [95]

    L. W. Siu, J. W. Holt, T. T. S. Kuo, and G. E. Brown, Low-momentum NN interactions and all-order summa- tion of ring diagrams of symmetric nuclear matter, Phys. Rev. C 79, 054004 (2009), arXiv:0904.1139 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  88. [96]

    S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, and A. Schwenk, From low-momentum interactions to nuclear structure, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 65, 94 (2010), arXiv:0912.3688 [nucl- th]

    2010 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Weinberg, Nonlinear realizations of chiral symmetry, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Nonlinear realizations of chiral symmetry, Phys. Rev. 166, 1568 (1968)

    1968

  90. [98]

    Papazoglou, D

    P. Papazoglou, D. Zschiesche, S. Schramm, J. Schaffner- Bielich, H. Stoecker, and W. Greiner, Nuclei in a chiral SU(3) model, Phys. Rev. C 59, 411 (1999), arXiv:nucl- th/9806087

    1999

  91. [99]

    e. a. Cruz-Camacho, Nikolas, CMF++ (2024)

    2024

  92. [100]

    Hempel, V

    M. Hempel, V. Dexheimer, S. Schramm, and I. Iosilevskiy, Noncongruence of the nuclear liquid-gas and deconfinement phase transitions, Phys. Rev. C 88, 014906 (2013), arXiv:1302.2835 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Aryal, C

    K. Aryal, C. Constantinou, R. L. S. Farias, and V. Dex- heimer, High-Energy Phase Diagrams with Charge and Isospin Axes under Heavy-Ion Collision and Stel- lar Conditions, Phys. Rev. D 102, 076016 (2020), arXiv:2004.03039 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Kumar, K

    R. Kumar, K. Aryal, A. Clevinger, and V. Dexheimer, Effects of hyperon potentials and symmetry energy in quark deconfinement, Phys. Lett. B 849, 138475 (2024), arXiv:2311.15968 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Papazoglou, S

    P. Papazoglou, S. Schramm, J. Schaffner-Bielich, H. Stoecker, and W. Greiner, Chiral Lagrangian for strange hadronic matter, Phys. Rev. C 57, 2576 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9706024

    1998 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Dexheimer, R

    V. Dexheimer, R. Negreiros, and S. Schramm, Reconcil- ing Nuclear and Astrophysical Constraints, Phys. Rev. C 92, 012801 (2015), arXiv:1503.07785 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Kumar, Y

    R. Kumar, Y. Wang, N. C. Camacho, A. Kumar, J. Noronha-Hostler, and V. Dexheimer, Modern nuclear and astrophysical constraints of dense matter in a rede- fined chiral approach, Phys. Rev. D 109, 074008 (2024), arXiv:2401.12944 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Dexheimer, R

    V. Dexheimer, R. de Oliveira Gomes, S. Schramm, and H. Pais, What do we learn about vector interac- tions from GW170817?, J. Phys. G 46, 034002 (2019), arXiv:1810.06109 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Steinheimer, V

    J. Steinheimer, V. Dexheimer, H. Petersen, M. Ble- icher, S. Schramm, and H. Stoecker, Hydrodynamics with a chiral hadronic equation of state including quark degrees of freedom, Phys. Rev. C 81, 044913 (2010), arXiv:0905.3099 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Steinheimer, M

    J. Steinheimer, M. Bleicher, H. Petersen, S. Schramm, H. Stocker, and D. Zschiesche, (3+1)-dimensional hy- drodynamic expansion with a critical point from realis- tic initial conditions, Phys. Rev. C 77, 034901 (2008), arXiv:0710.0332 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Steinheimer, A

    J. Steinheimer, A. Motornenko, A. Sorensen, Y. Nara, V. Koch, and M. Bleicher, The high-density equation of state in heavy-ion collisions: constraints from proton flow, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 911 (2022), arXiv:2208.12091 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Steinheimer, T

    J. Steinheimer, T. Reichert, Y. Nara, and M. Bleicher, Momentum dependent potentials from a parity doubling CMF model in UrQMD: results on flow and particle pro- duction, J. Phys. G52, 035103 (2025), arXiv:2410.01742 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Steinheimer, M

    J. Steinheimer, M. Omana Kuttan, T. Reichert, Y. Nara, and M. Bleicher, Predicting the QCD critical point and EoS from combining HIC and neutron star observations (2025), arXiv:2501.12849 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Jakobus, B

    P. Jakobus, B. M¨ uller, A. Heger, S. Zha, J. Powell, A. Motornenko, J. Steinheimer, and H. Stoecker, Grav- itational Waves from a Core g Mode in Supernovae as Probes of the High-Density Equation of State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 191201 (2023), arXiv:2301.06515 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Negreiros, V

    R. Negreiros, V. A. Dexheimer, and S. Schramm, Model- 35 ing Hybrid Stars with an SU(3) non-linear sigma model, Phys. Rev. C 82, 035803 (2010), arXiv:1006.0380 [astro- ph.SR]

    2010 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Dexheimer, J

    V. Dexheimer, J. Steinheimer, R. Negreiros, and S. Schramm, Hybrid Stars in an SU(3) parity doublet model, Phys. Rev. C87, 015804 (2013), arXiv:1206.3086 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  107. [115]

    E. R. Most, L. J. Papenfort, V. Dexheimer, M. Hanauske, S. Schramm, H. St¨ ocker, and L. Rezzolla, Signatures of quark-hadron phase transitions in general- relativistic neutron-star mergers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 061101 (2019), arXiv:1807.03684 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  108. [116]

    E. R. Most, L. Jens Papenfort, V. Dexheimer, M. Hanauske, H. Stoecker, and L. Rezzolla, On the de- confinement phase transition in neutron-star mergers, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 59 (2020), arXiv:1910.13893 [astro- ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  109. [117]

    E. R. Most, A. Motornenko, J. Steinheimer, V. Dex- heimer, M. Hanauske, L. Rezzolla, and H. Stoecker, Probing neutron-star matter in the lab: Similarities and differences between binary mergers and heavy- ion collisions, Phys. Rev. D 107, 043034 (2023), arXiv:2201.13150 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Steinheimer, S

    J. Steinheimer, S. Schramm, and H. Stocker, The hadronic SU(3) Parity Doublet Model for Dense Mat- ter, its extension to quarks and the strange equation of state, Phys. Rev. C 84, 045208 (2011), arXiv:1108.2596 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Motornenko, J

    A. Motornenko, J. Steinheimer, V. Vovchenko, S. Schramm, and H. Stoecker, Equation of state for hot QCD and compact stars from a mean field approach, Phys. Rev. C 101, 034904 (2020), arXiv:1905.00866 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Peterson, P

    J. Peterson, P. Costa, R. Kumar, V. Dexheimer, R. Ne- greiros, and C. Providencia, Temperature and strong magnetic field effects in dense matter, Phys. Rev. D108, 063011 (2023), arXiv:2304.02454 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  113. [121]

    P. Alba, V. Mantovani Sarti, J. Noronha, J. Noronha- Hostler, P. Parotto, I. Portillo Vazquez, and C. Ratti, Effect of the QCD equation of state and strange hadronic resonances on multiparticle correlations in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 98, 034909 (2018), arXiv:1711.05...

    2018 arXiv

  114. [122]

    J. S. San Martin, R. Hirayama, J. Hammelmann, J. M. Karthein, P. Parotto, J. Noronha-Hostler, C. Ratti, and H. Elfner, Thermodynamics of an updated hadronic res- onance list and influence on hadronic transport (2023), arXiv:2309.01737 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Burkardt, Fsolve: Nonlinear equation solver (2023), accessed on 9/29/23

    J. Burkardt, Fsolve: Nonlinear equation solver (2023), accessed on 9/29/23

    2023

  116. [124]

    Peterson, V

    J. Peterson, V. Dexheimer, R. Negreiros, and B. G. Castanheira, Effects of Magnetic Fields in Hot White Dwarfs, Astrophys. J. 921, 1 (2021), arXiv:2105.03387 [astro-ph.SR]

    2021 arXiv

  117. [125]

    M. G. Alford and S. P. Harris, Beta equilibrium in neu- tron star mergers, Phys. Rev. C 98, 065806 (2018), arXiv:1803.00662 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  118. [126]

    W. M. Alberico and G. Garbarino, Weak decay of hy- pernuclei, in International School of Physics ’Enrico Fermi’: Summer Course on Hadronic Physics (2004) pp. 125–181, arXiv:nucl-th/0410059

    2004 arXiv

  119. [127]

    M. G. Alford and A. Haber, Strangeness-changing Rates and Hyperonic Bulk Viscosity in Neutron Star Merg- ers, Phys. Rev. C 103, 045810 (2021), arXiv:2009.05181 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Roark and V

    J. Roark and V. Dexheimer, Deconfinement phase tran- sition in proto-neutron-star matter, Phys. Rev. C 98, 055805 (2018), arXiv:1803.02411 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Dexheimer, Tabulated Neutron Star Equations of State Modeled within the Chiral Mean Field Model, Publ

    V. Dexheimer, Tabulated Neutron Star Equations of State Modeled within the Chiral Mean Field Model, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 34, E006 (2017), arXiv:1708.08342 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Typel and H

    S. Typel and H. H. Wolter, Relativistic mean field calcu- lations with density dependent meson nucleon coupling, Nucl. Phys. A 656, 331 (1999)

    1999

  123. [131]

    Grams, S

    G. Grams, S. Giraud, A. F. Fantina, and F. Gulminelli, Distribution of nuclei in equilibrium stellar matter from the free-energy density in a Wigner-Seitz cell, Phys. Rev. C 97, 035807 (2018)

    2018

  124. [132]

    M. R. Pelicer, D. P. Menezes, C. C. Barros, Jr., and F. Gulminelli, Fluctuations in the nuclear pasta phase, Phys. Rev. C 104, L022801 (2021), arXiv:2105.03318 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  125. [133]

    Agarwal, K

    S. Agarwal, K. Mierle, and T. C. S. Team, Ceres Solver (2023)

    2023

  126. [134]

    Kanzow, N

    C. Kanzow, N. Yamashita, and M. Fukushima, Lev- enberg–marquardt methods with strong local conver- gence properties for solving nonlinear equations with convex constraints, Journal of Computational and Ap- plied Mathematics 172, 375 (2004)

    2004

  127. [135]

    A. W. Steiner, S. Gandolfi, F. J. Fattoyev, and W. G. Newton, Using Neutron Star Observations to Deter- mine Crust Thicknesses, Moments of Inertia, and Tidal Deformabilities, Phys. Rev. C 91, 015804 (2015), arXiv:1403.7546 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  128. [136]

    H. Tan, T. Dore, V. Dexheimer, J. Noronha-Hostler, and N. Yunes, Extreme matter meets extreme gravity: Ultraheavy neutron stars with phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023018 (2022), arXiv:2106.03890 [astro- ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  129. [137]

    L. L. Lopes, Role of the symmetry energy slope in neu- tron stars: Exploring the model dependency, Phys. Rev. C 110, 015805 (2024), arXiv:2406.10755 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  130. [138]

    Roark, X

    J. Roark, X. Du, C. Constantinou, V. Dexheimer, A. W. Steiner, and J. R. Stone, Hyperons and quarks in proto- neutron stars, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 486, 5441 (2019), arXiv:1812.08157 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  131. [139]

    Mariani and G

    M. Mariani and G. Lugones, Quark-hadron pasta phase in neutron stars: The role of medium-dependent sur- face and curvature tensions, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063022 (2024), arXiv:2308.13973 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  132. [140]

    A. G. Grunfeld and G. Lugones, The role of quark mat- ter surface tension in magnetars, Astron. Nachr. 342, 205 (2021), arXiv:2011.06131 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  133. [141]

    Constantinou, T

    C. Constantinou, T. Zhao, S. Han, and M. Prakash, Framework for phase transitions between the Maxwell and Gibbs constructions, Phys. Rev. D 107, 074013 (2023), arXiv:2302.04289 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  134. [142]

    S. S. Avancini, D. P. Menezes, M. B. Pinto, and C. Prov- idencia, The QCD Critical End Point Under Strong Magnetic Fields, Phys. Rev. D 85, 091901 (2012), arXiv:1202.5641 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  135. [143]

    N. K. Glendenning, Phase transitions and crystalline structures in neutron star cores, Phys. Rept. 342, 393 (2001)

    2001

  136. [144]

    Bhattacharyya, I

    A. Bhattacharyya, I. N. Mishustin, and W. Greiner, Deconfinement Phase Transition in Compact Stars : Maxwell vs. Gibbs Construction of the Mixed Phase, J. 36 Phys. G 37, 025201 (2010), arXiv:0905.0352 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  137. [145]

    Vovchenko, D

    V. Vovchenko, D. V. Anchishkin, and M. I. Gorenstein, Van der Waals Equation of State with Fermi Statistics for Nuclear Matter, Phys. Rev. C 91, 064314 (2015), arXiv:1504.01363 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  138. [146]

    Chandler, Introduction to Modern Statistical Me- chanics (Oxford University Press, 1987)

    D. Chandler, Introduction to Modern Statistical Me- chanics (Oxford University Press, 1987)

    1987

  139. [147]

    Masuda, T

    K. Masuda, T. Hatsuda, and T. Takatsuka, Hadron–quark crossover and massive hybrid stars, PTEP 2013, 073D01 (2013), arXiv:1212.6803 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  140. [148]

    Mroczek, N

    D. Mroczek, N. Yao, K. Zine, J. Noronha-Hostler, V. Dexheimer, A. Haber, and E. R. Most, Finite- temperature expansion of the dense-matter equation of state (2024), arXiv:2404.01658 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  141. [149]

    S. G. Johnson, Multi-dimensional adaptive integration in C: The Cubature package, https://github.com/ stevengj/cubature (2005)

    2005

  142. [150]

    H. Tan, V. Dexheimer, J. Noronha-Hostler, and N. Yunes, Finding Structure in the Speed of Sound of Supranuclear Matter from Binary Love Relations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 161101 (2022), arXiv:2111.10260 [astro- ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  143. [151]

    Berti, F

    E. Berti, F. White, A. Maniopoulou, and M. Bruni, Ro- tating neutron stars: An Invariant comparison of ap- proximate and numerical spacetime models, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.358, 923 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0405146

    2005 arXiv

  144. [152]

    K. Yagi, K. Kyutoku, G. Pappas, N. Yunes, and T. A. Apostolatos, Effective No-Hair Relations for Neutron Stars and Quark Stars: Relativistic Results, Phys. Rev. D 89, 124013 (2014), arXiv:1403.6243 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  145. [153]

    J. L. Friedman and N. Stergioulas, Rotating Relativistic Stars (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Eng- land, 2013)

    2013

  146. [154]

    J. B. Hartle, Slowly-rotating relativistic stars. iv. rota- tional energy and moment of inertia for stars in differ- ential rotation, Astrophys. J. 161, 111 (1970)

    1970

  147. [155]

    Chirenti, J

    C. Chirenti, J. Skakala, and S. Yoshida, Slowly rotating neutron stars with small differential rotation: equilib- rium models and oscillations in the Cowling approxima- tion, Phys. Rev. D 87, 044043 (2013), arXiv:1301.3111 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  148. [156]

    M. D. Duez, Y. T. Liu, S. L. Shapiro, and M. Shibata, Evolution of magnetized, differentially rotating neutron stars: Simulations in full general relativity, Phys. Rev. D 73, 104015 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0605331

    2006 arXiv

  149. [157]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Relativistic tidal proper- ties of neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084035 (2009), arXiv:0906.0096 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  150. [158]

    Binnington and E

    T. Binnington and E. Poisson, Relativistic theory of tidal Love numbers, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084018 (2009), arXiv:0906.1366 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  151. [159]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, I-Love-Q Relations in Neutron Stars and their Applications to Astrophysics, Gravita- tional Waves and Fundamental Physics, Phys. Rev. D 88, 023009 (2013), arXiv:1303.1528 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  152. [160]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, I-Love-Q, Science 341, 365 (2013), arXiv:1302.4499 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  153. [161]

    Salmi, D

    T. Salmi, D. Choudhury, Y. Kini, T. Riley, S. Vin- ciguerra, A. L. Watts, M. T. Wolff, Z. Arzoumanian, S. Bogdanov, D. Chakrabarty, K. Gendreau, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, D. Huppenkothen, R. M. Ludlam, S. M. Morsink, and P. S. Ray, Data and software for: ’the ra- dius of the hi...

    2024 doi

  154. [162]

    Salmi et al., The Radius of the High-mass Pulsar PSR J0740+6620 with 3.6 yr of NICER Data, Astrophys

    T. Salmi et al., The Radius of the High-mass Pulsar PSR J0740+6620 with 3.6 yr of NICER Data, Astrophys. J. 974, 294 (2024), arXiv:2406.14466 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  155. [163]

    M. C. Miller et al. , PSR J0030+0451 Mass and Radius from N ICERData and Implications for the Properties of Neutron Star Matter, Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L24 (2019), arXiv:1912.05705 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  156. [164]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bog- danov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guil- lot, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, R. M. Ludlam, S. Mahmoodifar, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, T. E. Strohmayer, K. S. Wood, T. Enoto, R. Foster, T. Okajima, G. Prigozhi...

    2019 doi

  157. [165]

    Lindblom, Determining the nuclear equation of state from neutron-star masses and radii, Astrophys

    L. Lindblom, Determining the nuclear equation of state from neutron-star masses and radii, Astrophys. J. 398, 569 (1992)

    1992

  158. [166]

    J. W. T. Hessels, S. M. Ransom, I. H. Stairs, P. C. C. Freire, V. M. Kaspi, and F. Camilo, A radio pulsar spin- ning at 716-hz, Science 311, 1901 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0601337

    2006

  159. [167]

    Andersson and K

    N. Andersson and K. D. Kokkotas, The R mode insta- bility in rotating neutron stars, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 381 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0010102

    2001 arXiv

  160. [168]

    M. G. Alford and K. Schwenzer, What the Timing of Millisecond Pulsars Can Teach us about Their Interior, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 251102 (2014), arXiv:1310.3524 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  161. [169]

    E. M. Kantor, M. E. Gusakov, and V. A. Dommes, Con- straining neutron superfluidity with r-mode physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 151101 (2020), arXiv:2009.12553 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  162. [170]

    M. G. Alford, L. Bovard, M. Hanauske, L. Rezzolla, and K. Schwenzer, Viscous Dissipation and Heat Conduction in Binary Neutron-Star Mergers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 041101 (2018), arXiv:1707.09475 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  163. [171]

    E. R. Most, A. Haber, S. P. Harris, Z. Zhang, M. G. Al- ford, and J. Noronha, Emergence of Microphysical Bulk Viscosity in Binary Neutron Star Postmerger Dynamics, Astrophys. J. Lett. 967, L14 (2024), arXiv:2207.00442 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  164. [172]

    M. G. Alford, A. Haber, S. P. Harris, and Z. Zhang, Beta Equilibrium Under Neutron Star Merger Condi- tions, Universe 7, 399 (2021), arXiv:2108.03324 [nucl- th]

    2021 arXiv

  165. [173]

    Y. Yang, M. Hippert, E. Speranza, and J. Noronha, Far- from-equilibrium bulk-viscous transport coefficients in neutron star mergers, Phys. Rev. C 109, 015805 (2024), arXiv:2309.01864 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  166. [174]

    L. F. Roberts and S. Reddy, Charged current neutrino interactions in hot and dense matter, Phys. Rev. C 95, 045807 (2017), arXiv:1612.02764 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  167. [175]

    G. P. Lepage, Adaptive multidimensional integration: VEGAS enhanced, J. Comput. Phys. 439, 110386 (2021), arXiv:2009.05112 [physics.comp-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  168. [176]

    Haensel, K

    P. Haensel, K. P. Levenfish, and D. G. Yakovlev, Bulk viscosity in superfluid neutron star cores. 2. Modified Urca processes in npe mu matter, Astron. Astrophys. 327, 130 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0103290

    2001 arXiv

  169. [177]

    Alford, A

    M. Alford, A. Harutyunyan, A. Sedrakian, and S. Tsiopelas, Bulk viscosity of two-color superconduct- ing quark matter in neutron star mergers, Phys. Rev. D 110, L061303 (2024), arXiv:2407.12493 [nucl-th]. 37

    2024 arXiv

  170. [178]

    Reinke Pelicer, Computational notebooks for build- ing neutron stars with the muses calculation engine (2025)

    M. Reinke Pelicer, Computational notebooks for build- ing neutron stars with the muses calculation engine (2025)

    2025

  171. [179]

    Monnai, G

    A. Monnai, G. Pihan, B. Schenke, and C. Shen, Four- dimensional QCD equation of state with multiple chem- ical potentials, Phys. Rev. C 110, 044905 (2024), arXiv:2406.11610 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  172. [180]

    Karpenko, P

    I. Karpenko, P. Huovinen, and M. Bleicher, A 3+1 di- mensional viscous hydrodynamic code for relativistic heavy ion collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 3016 (2014), arXiv:1312.4160 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  173. [181]

    1 8 m2 i q µ2 i − m2 i + 1 4 (µ2 i − m2 i )3/2 µi − 1 8 m4 i ln p µ2 i − m2 i + µi mi # , pi = 1 3π2

    T. J. Boerner, S. Deems, T. R. Furlani, S. L. Knuth, and J. Towns, Access: Advancing innovation: Nsf’s advanced cyberinfrastructure coordination ecosystem: Services & support, in Practice and Experience in Ad- vanced Research Computing 2023: Computing for the Common Good , PEA...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.