Neutron Star Radii from Laboratory Experiments

M. D. Cozma; W. Trautmann

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Neutron Star Radii from Laboratory Experiments

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combined laboratory and astrophysical data confine the canonical neutron star radius to 12–13 km.

desk verdict A candid, well-written review of neutron star radius constraints that honestly exposes its own central claim as prior-dependent; worth reading as a review, not as a new result. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00390 v2 pith:L7IUOQ55 submitted 2025-05-01 nucl-th astro-ph.SRnucl-ex

M. D. Cozma , W. Trautmann This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-thastro-ph.SRnucl-ex

keywords nuclearequationofstatesymmetryenergyheavy-ioncollisionsneutronstarradiiBayesianinferencechiraleffectivefieldtheoryellipticflowskin

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This review paper argues that the radius of a canonical 1.4-solar-mass neutron star is now confined to a band between 12 km and 13 km, and that this result is reached by combining three independent sources of information: nuclear theory, heavy-ion collision experiments, and astrophysical observations of neutron stars and mergers. The paper's purpose is to show, for a wider readership, how the nuclear equation of state—especially the density dependence of the symmetry energy in neutron-rich matter—governs neutron-star radii and how the different probes fit together. It matters because the radius encodes the pressure of cold dense matter at densities roughly one to two times nuclear saturation density, exactly the interval that laboratory experiments can access. If the band is right, the remaining uncertainty in the radius is dominated by this density interval, and targeted heavy-ion measurements can reduce it substantially.

What carries the argument

The central object is the density-dependent symmetry energy $E_{\mathrm{sym}}(\rho)$, the coefficient of the quadratic asymmetry term in the energy per nucleon; its slope $L$ and curvature $K_{\mathrm{sym}}$ at saturation density set the pressure of neutron-rich matter and hence the radius. The paper collects constraints on $E_{\mathrm{sym}}$ from nuclear-structure observables near two-thirds saturation density, from elliptic-flow ratios and pion production in heavy-ion collisions, and from neutron-skin measurements, then shows how Bayesian inference combines them with astrophysical input—pulsar radii, gravitational-wave tidal deformability, and precise masses near two solar masses—using priors built from chiral effective field theory or from metamodeling. The density interval between once and twice saturation density is the load-bearing region where the constraints are weakest and where laboratory experiments can make the next improvement.

What would settle it

A radius measurement of a 1.4-solar-mass neutron star with a 68% credible interval lying entirely outside 12–13 km—say a central value below 11.5 km or above 13.5 km with an error below 0.5 km—would contradict the claimed band, because the band is the intersection of independent constraints. A laboratory measurement that fixed the symmetry-energy slope $L$ clearly outside the range implied by the combined analyses would similarly destabilize the band.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the current body of evidence, when analyzed with Bayesian inference, converges on a radius $R_{1.4}$ between 12 km and 13 km for a canonical 1.4-solar-mass neutron star. The paper documents that individual combined analyses—one reporting $12.01\pm 0.78$ km, another $12.20\pm 0.50$ km, a third $12.9\pm 0.5$ km, and an astrophysics-only analysis reporting $11.98\pm 0.40$ km—all fall inside this band, and that model-agnostic astrophysical posteriors are consistent with it. The remaining spread is not attributed primarily to measurement noise but to missing information on the pressure of neutron-rich matter between once and twice nuclear saturation density, a region that heavy-ion collision experiments can probe.

Load-bearing premise

The 12–13 km band depends on the credibility of the chiral-effective-field-theory predictions used as a Bayesian prior up to about 1.5 times nuclear saturation density; the paper itself states that those predictions are not yet sufficiently robust, and shifting the assumed breakdown density from 1.5 to 1.0 times saturation moves the inferred radius by about 0.5 km.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the 12–13 km band is correct, the pressure of cold neutron-star matter at densities around one to two times saturation is also pinned, so the equation of state used in merger and nucleosynthesis simulations can be narrowed accordingly.
The remaining radius uncertainty is tied to the density interval accessible to heavy-ion collisions, so higher-statistics measurements of pion ratios and elliptic-flow ratios can be expected to pull the quoted errors from about 0.9 km toward 0.5 km.
Two robust reference points anchor the analysis: the symmetry energy near two-thirds saturation density and the pulse-profile radius of the heaviest precisely measured pulsar; the recently measured radius of a nearby 1.4-solar-mass pulsar is consistent with the band and shifts the posterior by only about 0.1–0.2 km.
Because the laboratory and astrophysical constraints are mutually consistent, future data are more likely to refine the band than to overturn it, unless a different prior construction is adopted.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if the band holds, the maximum mass of neutron stars is more tightly bounded, which sharpens the open question of whether quark matter or other exotic phases appear in the cores of the heaviest stars.
A testable consequence implied by the paper's account is that the symmetry-energy slope $L$ should lie in a fairly narrow range near 40–90 MeV; a neutron-skin measurement that pinned $L$ outside this range would force the band to move.
The paper's observation that two leading combined analyses are nearly mutually exclusive below 1.5 times saturation suggests that the decisive next step may come from a dedicated experimental campaign mapping the 1–2 saturation interval, rather than from additional astrophysical data alone.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a review article, not a new research contribution. Read it with that frame and it's a good one: the authors know the literature, report the numbers accurately (Huth 12.01±0.78, Koehn 12.20±0.50, Tsang 12.9±0.5, Pang 11.98±0.40), and they are refreshingly explicit about the soft spots—Section 8 openly states that χEFT predictions at 1–2 nsat are not sufficiently robust and that the mode of using them strongly influences the posteriors. They also flag the practical mutual exclusivity of the Huth and Tsang pressure contours up to 1.5 nsat.

The main weakness is the abstract and conclusion. Saying the analyses 'confine' R1.4 to 12–13 km overstates what the body of the paper shows. The band is an envelope of prior choices, not a data-driven posterior. The paper itself gives the tell: lowering the χEFT breakdown density from 1.5 to 1.0 nsat shifts R1.4 by about 0.5 km in Huth et al., which is half the width of the claimed band. If the priors are the drivers, 'confine' is too strong. The authors are aware of this—the Section 8 caveat is there—but the abstract doesn't carry it.

What's genuinely useful here is the synthesis. The discussion of the asymmetry energy from nuclear structure, the PREX/CREX tension, the status of pion-ratio analyses, and the recent J0437 radius is balanced and current. The figures, especially the comparison of pressure constraints from different combined analyses, will be helpful to non-specialists. The review is also honest about the limitations of transport models in extracting symmetry energy from flow data, which is not always the case in this literature.

The citation pattern is fine. The authors' own work appears, but it's part of the evidence base and not the load-bearing source. The paper doesn't attempt to hide its nature as a review.

Who gets value from this: graduate students and researchers entering the field; also experienced practitioners who want a compact status report with all the relevant references in one place. It deserves a serious referee if submitted as a review, and I'd accept it for a good refereed venue with only light requests for softening the abstract. If it's submitted as a research paper, it should be reclassified.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This review article surveys the present knowledge of the nuclear equation of state relevant to neutron stars, with particular emphasis on the density dependence of the symmetry energy and on the complementary constraints from nuclear structure, heavy-ion collisions, and astrophysical observations. It presents the main combined Bayesian analyses (Huth et al., Tsang et al., Koehn et al., Pang et al., and Legred et al.) and states that these analyses confine the radius of the canonical 1.4-solar-mass neutron star to values between 12 km and 13 km. The paper also discusses the remaining uncertainties in the density interval between one and two times saturation density, the PREX/CREX neutron-skin puzzle, and the prospects for new heavy-ion experiments at RIKEN and GSI/FAIR.

Significance. The review is a clearly written and well-organized synthesis of a fast-moving field, and it will be useful for non-specialists seeking an overview of laboratory and astrophysical constraints on the equation of state. The reported numerical values faithfully represent the cited literature, including the lower NICER J0437-4715 central value, and the authors explicitly acknowledge in Section 8 that chiral effective field theory predictions are not yet sufficiently robust in the 1.0–1.5 nsat interval. If the 12–13 km band withstands further scrutiny, it is an important constraint for nuclear theory and for the interpretation of multi-messenger observations. The paper does not claim new results; its value lies in its synthesis and in the clear articulation of the remaining laboratory-driven uncertainties.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and Section 8] The abstract states that recent combined analyses 'confine' R1.4 to values between 12 km and 13 km, but the body of the paper documents that this band is sensitive to the treatment of the chiral effective field theory (χEFT) prior. In Section 8, the authors report that Huth et al. obtain R1.4 = 12.01 ± 0.78 km when χEFT is used up to 1.5 nsat and R1.4 = 12.56 ± 1.07 km when the breakdown density is lowered to 1.0 nsat, a shift of about 0.5 km that is half the width of the claimed band. The text also notes that the mode of using χEFT 'has a strong influence on the finally obtained posterior distributions of equations of state.' This means that the 12–13 km interval is not a robust, data-driven confinement but rather a spread of prior-dependent central values. The abstract and the concluding section (Section 10) should explicitly qualify the claim, for example by stating that the band reflects the central values of recent analyses with a strong dependence on the adopted theory prior, or by softening the term 'confine.'
[Sections 8 and 10] There is an internal tension between the observation in Section 8 that the pressure-density contours of Huth et al. and Tsang et al. are 'practically mutually exclusive up to 1.5 times saturation density, even at the 95% confidence limits displayed in the figure' and the statement in Section 10 that 'the consistent picture that has emerged from the GW170817 multi-messenger observations and their interpretations makes it unlikely, however, that any new observation of comparable significance will be severely contradicting existing results.' Two analyses that both support the 12–13 km radius band nevertheless disagree on the underlying equation of state at densities up to 1.5 nsat, which is precisely the density interval emphasized in the paper as the source of the remaining uncertainty. The authors should either reconcile these statements or explicitly acknowledge that the mutual exclusivity indicates an unresolved systematic uncertainty that limits the robustness of the radius band.

minor comments (4)

[Section 9] In Section 9, 'high transverse meomentum' should read 'high transverse momentum.'
[Section 4] The symbol ρ is used for both mass density (in g/cm3) in Section 2 and nucleon number density (in fm^-3) in later sections; this could confuse readers. Please clarify by using n for number density or explicitly stating the units at each occurrence.
[Section 5] The caption of Figure 5 states that 'the size of the open symbols inside representing the experimental errors'; this is ambiguous because the reader cannot tell whether the box height or the symbol size encodes the uncertainty. Please specify the meaning of the symbol sizes and box heights explicitly.
[Section 10] The sentence 'It was not expected that GW170817 will remain the only neutron-star merger of its kind for such a long time' should use 'would remain' for grammatical consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the 12–13 km radius band is a synthesis of external combined analyses, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

This is a review article, not an original derivation, and its headline claim is explicitly attributed to external Bayesian analyses: Huth et al. (R1.4 = 12.01 ± 0.78 km), Tsang et al. (12.9 ± 0.5 km), Koehn et al. (12.20 ± 0.50 km), Pang et al. (11.98 ± 0.40 km), and Legred et al. (12.6 ± 1.1 km). The authors' own prior heavy-ion analyses (Cozma 2018, Cozma 2024) are cited as one component of the heavy-ion evidence base, but the radius interval is not computed from their fitted values of L or Ksym; no equation in the paper defines the 12–13 km band in terms of the authors' own parameters. The paper's Section 8 discussion of the 0.5 km shift when the χEFT breakdown density is lowered from 1.5nsat to 1.0nsat is an explicit robustness caveat about prior sensitivity, not a circular reduction of the conclusion to its inputs. There is no self-definitional step, no fitted input relabeled as a prediction, and no imported uniqueness theorem. The remaining prior-dependence concern is a scientific robustness issue, not a circularity issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This review introduces no new free parameters or entities. The central radius claim rests on published analyses, whose key inputs are the symmetry-energy parametrization, transport-model interpretations, and χEFT priors. These are domain assumptions inherited from the cited literature, listed above. The paper itself flags the χEFT-prior assumption as the most fragile piece.

free parameters (2)

Gamma (power-law exponent of the symmetry energy, Eq. 3) = 0.72 ± 0.19
The ASY-EOS analysis reported in the review fits this parameter to the measured elliptic flow ratio while keeping Esym(ρ0)=34 MeV and the power-law form fixed. The review presents this fitted value as a constraint entering the combined radius estimate.
Esym(0.10 fm^-3) = 25.5 MeV
Adopted from Brown (2013) and used as a fixed anchor in the authors' own flow analyses (Refs. 63, 124) that are cited as part of the evidence base. The review presents it as a robust low-density reference point.

assumptions (5)

standard math TOV equations relate mass, radius, and pressure of a neutron star.
Used implicitly throughout Sections 2 and 8 to convert equations of state into mass-radius relations.
domain assumption The symmetry energy can be expanded as Esym(ρ) = Esym(ρ0) + (L/3)((ρ-ρ0)/ρ0) + (Ksym/18)((ρ-ρ0)/ρ0)^2 + ...
Eq. (2) is the basis for the slope and curvature parameters quoted in Sections 4, 7, and 8; it assumes the expansion in density around saturation is meaningful.
domain assumption Transport models can reliably extract equation-of-state information from heavy-ion collision data.
Sections 5-7 interpret elliptic flow and pion data through models such as UrQMD, TuQMD, and dcQMD; the review itself notes model dependence remains a limitation.
domain assumption Chiral effective field theory provides a reliable prior for the equation of state up to about 1.5 times saturation density.
Section 8 states that the combined analyses of Huth et al. and Koehn et al. use χEFT priors up to 1.5 nsat, and the review explicitly flags this as not yet robust and as strongly influencing the inferred radius.
domain assumption The symmetry energy at 0.10 fm^-3 equals 25.5 MeV (Brown 2013).
Adopted in the authors' own analyses (Refs. 63, 124) and used as an anchor; the review presents it as a robust low-density reference point.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutron Star Radii from Laboratory Experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L7IUOQ55

@misc{pith2026250500390,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutron Star Radii from Laboratory Experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L7IUOQ55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00390}
}

read the original abstract

Our present knowledge of the nuclear equation of state is briefly reviewed in this article intended for a wider readership. Particular emphasis is given to the asymmetric-matter equation of state required for modeling neutron stars, neutron-star mergers, and r-process nucleosynthesis. Recent analyses based on combining information obtained from nuclear theory, heavy-ion collisions and astrophysical observations confine the obtained radii of the canonical 1.4-solar-mass neutron star to values between 12 km and 13 km. The remaining uncertainty is primarily related to missing information in the density interval between nuclear saturation density and about twice that value which, however, is accessible with laboratory experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00390 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Pressure-density relation of neutron-star matter: the shaded regions enclose the 90% sym [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Variation of the nuclear-matter symmetry energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Pressure in symmetric nuclear matter as a function of density. The lines represent pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Left panel: charged-pion yield ratios from the S [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Single pion spectral ratios for 132Sn+124Sn (left) and 108Sn+112Sn (right) reactions. The curves are dcQMD predictions using different L and ∆m∗ np values listed in the right panel (adapted from Ref.,109 copyright © 2021 by the American Physical Society). sensitivities…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Elliptic flow ratio of neutrons over all charged particles for central collisions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Constraints deduced for the density dependence of the symmetry energy from the ASY-EOS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Neutron-to-proton elliptic flow ratio as a function of the stiffness parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Pressure of cold neutron-star matter (asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Constraints on the equation of state of neutron-star matter represented as the evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Constraints obtained in Ref.124 (dcQMD FOPI, red lines and contours) for the density dependence of the equation of state of symmetric nuclear matter (left panel) and for the symmetry energy (right panel) in comparison with other analyses of data from heavy-ion collisi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Effects of light-cluster degrees of freedom on collective flows in heavy-ion collisions at FOPI energies
nucl-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Explicitly propagating light clusters in a Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck transport model substantially modifies predicted proton v1-v4 flows at low FOPI energies (120-400 A MeV) but not above 600 A MeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

157 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

B. P. Abbott et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

2017
[2]

Focus Issue on the Electromagnetic Counterpart of the Neutron Star Binary Merger GW170817, Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, Number 2 (2017)

2017
[3]

J. M. Lattimer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 433 (2021)

2021
[4]

Watson et al

D. Watson et al. , Nature 574, 497 (2019)

2019
[5]

B. P. Abbott et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018)

2018
[6]

A. G. Chaves and T. Hinderer, J. Phys. G 46, 123002 (2019)

2019
[7]

J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rept. 442, 109 (2007)

2007
[8]

Bao-An Li, Lie-Wen Chen and Che Ming Ko, Phys. Rept. 464, 113 (2008)

2008

Show all 157 references

[9]

T. E. Riley et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L21 (2019)

2019
[10]

M. C. Miller et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L24 (2019)

2019
[11]

T. E. Riley et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L27 (2021)

2021
[12]

M. C. Miller et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L28 (2021)

2021
[13]

C. A. Raithel, F. ¨Ozel and D. Psaltis, Astrophys. J. 875, 12 (2019); Erratum: Astro- phys. J. 915, 73 (2021)

2019
[14]

Bao-An Li, Nucl. Phys. A 708 , 365 (2002)

2002
[15]

J. M. Lattimer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62, 485 (2012)

2012
[16]

G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Yifan Song and T. Takatsuka, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 056902 (2018)

2018
[17]

Bombaci, Manju Prakash, P

Madappa Prakash, I. Bombaci, Manju Prakash, P. J. Ellis, J. M. Lattimer and R. Knorren, Phys. Rept. 280, 1 (1997)

1997
[18]

J. A. Pons, S. Reddy, M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer and J. A. Miralles, Astrophys. J. 513, 780 (1999)

1999
[19]

Abbott et al., Phys

The LIGO Scientific Collab., the Virgo Collab., the KAGRA Collab.: R. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. X 13, 011048 (2023)

2023
[20]

Dietrich et al

T. Dietrich et al. , Science 370, 1450 (2020)

2020
[21]

Legred, K

I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, R. Essick, Sophia Han and P. Landry, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063003 (2021)

2021
[22]

H. T. Cromartie et al. , Nature Astronomy 4, 72 (2019)

2019
[23]

Fonseca et al

E. Fonseca et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, L12 (2021)

2021
[24]

P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. Roberts and J. W. T. Hessels, September 5, 2025 11:35 cozma˙trautmann˙arxiv˙v2 Neutron Star Radii from Laboratory Experiments 25 Nature 467, 1081 (2010)

2010
[25]

Antoniadis et al

J. Antoniadis et al. , Science 340, 6131 (2013)

2013
[26]

Douchin and P

F. Douchin and P. Haensel, Astron. Astrophys. 380, 151 (2001)

2001
[27]

Tews, Phys

I. Tews, Phys. Rev. C 95, 015803 (2017)

2017
[28]

G. Baym, S. Furusawa, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo and H. Togashi, Astrophys. J. 885, 42 (2019)

2019
[29]

R. N. Wolf et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 041101 (2013)

2013
[30]

Chamel and P

N. Chamel and P. Haensel, Living Rev. Rel. 11, 10 (2008)

2008
[31]

Brandes, W

L. Brandes, W. Weise and N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094014 (2023)

2023
[32]

Shao-Peng Tang, Jin-Liang Jiang, Ming-Zhe Han, Yi-Zhong Fan and Da-Ming Wei, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063032 (2021)

2021
[33]

L. R. Weih, M. Hanauske and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 171103 (2020)

2020
[34]

Somasundaram, I

R. Somasundaram, I. Tews and J. Margueron, Phys. Rev. C 107, L052801 (2023)

2023
[35]

Annala et al

E. Annala et al. , Nature Communications 14, 8451 (2023)

2023
[36]

P. T. H. Pang et al. , Phys. Rev. C 109, 025807 (2024)

2024
[37]

Khan and J

E. Khan and J. Margueron, Phys. Rev. C 88, 034319 (2013)

2013
[38]

Perot, N

L. Perot, N. Chamel and A. Sourie, Phys. Rev. C 100, 035801 (2019)

2019
[39]

Trippa, G

L. Trippa, G. Col` o and E. Vigezzi, Phys. Rev. C 77, 061304(R) (2008)

2008
[40]

Roca-Maza et al

X. Roca-Maza et al. , Phys. Rev. C 87, 034301 (2013)

2013
[41]

Ning Wang, Li Ou and Min Liu, Phys. Rev. C 87, 034327 (2013)

2013
[42]

Zhen Zhang and Lie-Wen Chen, Phys. Lett. B 726, 234 (2013)

2013
[43]

B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 232502 (2013)

2013
[44]

Pengsheng Wen and J. W. Holt, Phys. Rev. C 103, 064002 (2021)

2021
[45]

Zhen Zhang and Lie-Wen Chen, Phys. Rev. C 90, 064317 (2014)

2014
[46]

B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5296 (2000)

2000
[47]

Fuchs and H

C. Fuchs and H. H. Wolter, Eur. Phys. J. A 30, 5 (2006)

2006
[48]

Zhen Zhang and Lie-Wen Chen, Phys. Rev. C 92, 031301(R) (2015)

2015
[49]

M. B. Tsang et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 122701 (2009)

2009
[50]

Danielewicz and J

P. Danielewicz and J. Lee, Nucl. Phys. A 922, 1 (2014)

2014
[51]

C. J. Horowitz et al. , J. Phys. G 41, 093001 (2014)

2014
[52]

Audi et al

G. Audi et al. , Chin. Phys. C 36, 1287 (2012)

2012
[53]

Goriely, N

S. Goriely, N. Chamel and J. M. Pearson, Phys. Rev. C 88, 024308 (2013)

2013
[54]

C. J. Horowitz and A. Schwenk, Nucl. Phys. A 776, 55 (2006)

2006
[55]

Typel, G

S. Typel, G. R¨ opke, T. Kl¨ ahn, D. Blaschke and H. H. Wolter,Phys. Rev. C 81, 015803 (2010)

2010
[56]

J. B. Natowitz et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 202501 (2010)

2010
[57]

Hempel, K

M. Hempel, K. Hagel, J. Natowitz, G. R¨ opke and S. Typel, Phys. Rev. C 91, 045805 (2015)

2015
[58]

Bougault et al

R. Bougault et al. , J. Phys. G 47, 025103 (2020)

2020
[59]

Bao-An Li, P. G. Krastev, De-Hua Wen and Nai-Bo Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 117 (2019)

2019
[60]

G. F. Burgio, H.-J. Schulze, I. Vida˜ na and Jin-Biao Wei,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 120, 103879 (2021)

2021
[61]

Bao-An Li and Xiao Han, Phys. Lett. B 727, 276 (2013)

2013
[62]

Oertel, M

M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015007 (2017)

2017
[63]

M. D. Cozma, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 40 (2018)

2018
[64]

Magno, Phys

Bao-An Li and M. Magno, Phys. Rev. C 102, 045807 (2020)

2020
[65]

C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5647 (2001)

2001
[66]

D. M. Rossi et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 242503 (2013)

2013
[67]

Tamii, P

A. Tamii, P. von Neumann-Cosel and I. Poltoratska, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 28 (2014). September 5, 2025 11:35 cozma˙trautmann˙arxiv˙v2 26 M. D. Cozma and W. Trautmann

2014
[68]

Adhikari et al

D. Adhikari et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 172502 (2021)

2021
[69]

B. T. Reed, F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 172503 (2021)

2021
[70]

C. J. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz and B. Reed, Phys. Rev. C 102, 044321 (2020)

2020
[71]

Essick, I

R. Essick, I. Tews, P. Landry and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 192701 (2021)

2021
[72]

Adhikari et al

D. Adhikari et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 042501 (2022)

2022
[73]

Reinhard, X

P.-G. Reinhard, X. Roca-Maza and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 232501 (2022)

2022
[74]

J. M. Lattimer, Particles 6, 30 (2023)

2023
[75]

Zhen Zhang and Lie-Wen Chen, Phys. Rev. C 108, 024317 (2023)

2023
[76]

China Phys

Jia Zhou and Jun Xu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 282011 (2024)

2024
[77]

B. T. Reed, F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 109, 035803 (2024)

2024
[78]

Becker et al

D. Becker et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 208 (2018)

2018
[79]

, Nature Physics 18, 1196 (2022)

Baishan Hu et al. , Nature Physics 18, 1196 (2022)

2022
[80]

Giacalone, G

G. Giacalone, G. Nijs and W. van der Schee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 202302 (2023)

2023
[81]

Aumann, C

T. Aumann, C. A. Bertulani, F. Schindler and S. Typel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 262501 (2017)

2017
[82]

Ponnath et al

L. Ponnath et al. , Phys. Lett. B 855, 138780 (2024)

2024
[83]

Baldo and G

M. Baldo and G. F. Burgio, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 91, 203 (2016)

2016
[84]

Ramos, G

Topical Issue on Nuclear Symmetry Energy , edited by Bao-An Li, `A. Ramos, G. Verde and I. Vida˜ na,Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 9 (2014)

2014
[85]

Bao-An Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 192701 (2002)

2002
[86]

Danielewicz, R

P. Danielewicz, R. Lacey and W. G. Lynch, Science 298, 1592 (2002)

2002
[87]

Fuchs, A

C. Fuchs, A. Faessler, E. Zabrodin and Yu-Ming Zheng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1974 (2001)

2001
[88]

Danielewicz, Nucl

P. Danielewicz, Nucl. Phys. A 673, 375 (2000)

2000
[89]

A. W. Steiner, J. M. Lattimer and E. F. Brown, Astrophys. J. Lett. 765, L5 (2013)

2013
[90]

Reisdorf et al

W. Reisdorf et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 848, 366 (2010)

2010
[91]

Reisdorf et al

W. Reisdorf et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 876, 1 (2012)

2012
[92]

Le F` evre, Y

A. Le F` evre, Y. Leifels, W. Reisdorf, J. Aichelin and Ch. Hartnack, Nucl. Phys. A 945, 112 (2016)

2016
[93]

Le F` evre, Y

Yongjia Wang, Chenchen Guo, Qingfeng Li, A. Le F` evre, Y. Leifels and W. Traut- mann, Phys. Lett. B 778, 207 (2018)

2018
[94]

Bao-An Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4221 (2000)

2000
[95]

Russotto et al

P. Russotto et al. , Phys. Lett. B 697, 471 (2011)

2011
[96]

M. D. Cozma, Phys. Lett. B 700, 139 (2011)

2011
[97]

Kaneko et al

M. Kaneko et al. , Phys. Lett. B 822, 136681 (2021)

2021
[98]

Ferini, T

G. Ferini, T. Gaitanos, M. Colonna, M. Di Toro and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 202301 (2006)

2006
[99]

Reisdorf et al

W. Reisdorf et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 781, 459 (2007)

2007
[100]

Danielewicz, Phys

Jun Hong and P. Danielewicz, Phys. Rev. C 90, 024605 (2014)

2014
[101]

Taesoo Song and Che Ming Ko, Phys. Rev. C 91, 014901 (2015)

2015
[102]

M. D. Cozma, Phys. Lett. B 753, 166 (2016)

2016
[103]

Qingfeng Li and Zhuxia Li, Phys. Lett. B 773, 557 (2017)

2017
[104]

Jhang et al

G. Jhang et al. , Phys. Lett. B 813, 136016 (2021)

2021
[105]

Zhen Zhang and Che Ming Ko, Phys. Rev. C 97, 014610 (2018)

2018
[106]

Jun Xu et al. , Phys. Rev. C 109, 044609 (2024)

2024
[107]

M. D. Cozma and M. B. Tsang, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 309 (2021)

2021
[108]

Ikeno and A

N. Ikeno and A. Ono, Phys. Rev. C 108, 044601 (2023). September 5, 2025 11:35 cozma˙trautmann˙arxiv˙v2 Neutron Star Radii from Laboratory Experiments 27

2023
[109]

Estee et al

J. Estee et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 162701 (2021)

2021
[110]

Wolter et al

H. Wolter et al. , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 125, 103962 (2022)

2022
[111]

Huth et al

S. Huth et al. , Nature 606, 276 (2022)

2022
[112]

Russotto et al

P. Russotto et al. , Phys. Rev. C 94, 034608 (2016)

2016
[113]

Leifels et al

Y. Leifels et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 963 (1993)

1993
[114]

Lambrecht et al

D. Lambrecht et al. , Z. Phys. A 350, 115 (1994)

1994
[115]

Trautmann and H

W. Trautmann and H. H. Wolter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 21, 1230003 (2012)

2012
[116]

Leifels and W

Yongjia Wang, Chenchen Guo, Qingfeng Li, Hongfei Zhang, Y. Leifels and W. Traut- mann, Phys. Rev. C 89, 044603 (2014)

2014
[117]

M. D. Cozma, Y. Leifels, W. Trautmann, Qingfeng Li and P. Russotto, Phys. Rev. C 88, 044912 (2013)

2013
[118]

Russotto et al

P. Russotto et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 38 (2014)

2014
[119]

Blaich et al

Th. Blaich et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 314, 136 (1992)

1992
[120]

Andronic, J

A. Andronic, J. Lukasik, W. Reisdorf and W. Trautmann, Eur. Phys. J. A 30, 31 (2006)

2006
[121]

Le F` evre, Y

A. Le F` evre, Y. Leifels, C. Hartnack and J. Aichelin,Phys. Rev. C 98, 034901 (2018)

2018
[122]

Qingfeng Li et al. , Phys. Rev. C 83, 044617 (2011)

2011
[123]

C. B. Das, S. Das Gupta, C. Gale and Bao-An Li, Phys. Rev. C 67, 034611 (2003)

2003
[124]

M. D. Cozma, Phys. Rev. C 110, 064911 (2024)

2024
[125]

Andronic et al

A. Andronic et al. , Phys. Rev. C 64, 034907 (2003)

2003
[126]

Reisdorf et al

W. Reisdorf et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 232301 (2004)

2004
[127]

Margueron, R

J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C 97, 025805 (2018)

2018
[128]

Drischler, J

C. Drischler, J. W. Holt and C. Wellenhofer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 403 (2021)

2021
[129]

Hebeler, J

K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick and A. Schwenk, Astrophys. J. 773, 11 (2013)

2013
[130]

I. Tews, J. Margueron and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. C 98, 045804 (2018)

2018
[131]

Essick, I

R. Essick, I. Tews, P. Landry, S. Reddy and D. E. Holz, Phys. Rev. C 102, 055803 (2020)

2020
[132]

C. Y. Tsang, M. B. Tsang, W. G. Lynch, R. Kumar and C. J. Horowitz, Nature Astronomy 8, 328 (2024)

2024
[133]

Drischler, Sophia Han, J

C. Drischler, Sophia Han, J. M. Lattimer, M. Prakash, S. Reddy and Tianqi Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 103, 045808 (2021)

2021
[134]

Sorensen et al

A. Sorensen et al. , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 134, 104080 (2024)

2024
[135]

J. E. Lynn et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 062501 (2016)

2016
[136]

S. Huth, C. Wellenhofer and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 103, 025803 (2021)

2021
[137]

Tews et al

I. Tews et al. , Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 033024 (2025)

2025
[138]

Koehn et al

H. Koehn et al. , Phys. Rev. X 15, 021014 (2025)

2025
[139]

P. T. H. Pang et al. , Nature Communications 14, 8352 (2023)

2023
[140]

Salmi et al

T. Salmi et al. , Astrophys. J. 974, 294 (2024)

2024
[141]

A. J. Dittmann et al. , Astrophys. J. 974, 295 (2024)

2024
[142]

Lonardoni, A

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

2015
[143]

Logoteta, I

D. Logoteta, I. Vida˜ na and I. Bombaci, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 207 (2019)

2019
[144]

Jun-Ting Ye, Rui Wang, Si-Pei Wang and Lie-Wen Chen, arXiv:2411.18349 [nucl-th] (2024)

2024 arXiv
[145]

Weise, EPJ Web Conf

W. Weise, EPJ Web Conf. 291, 01007 (2024)

2024
[146]

Choudhury et al

D. Choudhury et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 971, L20 (2024)

2024
[147]

D. J. Reardon et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 971, L18 (2024). September 5, 2025 11:35 cozma˙trautmann˙arxiv˙v2 28 M. D. Cozma and W. Trautmann

2024
[148]

Vinciguerra et al

S. Vinciguerra et al. , Astrophys. J. 961, 62 (2024)

2024
[149]

Rutherford et al

N. Rutherford et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 971, L19 (2024)

2024
[150]

Malik, V

T. Malik, V. Dexheimer and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043042 (2024)

2024
[151]

Brandes and W

L. Brandes and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D 111, 034005 (2025)

2025
[152]

L. A. Tarasoviˇ cov´ a, J. Mohs, A. Andronic, H. Elfner and K.-H. Kampert,Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 232 (2024)

2024
[153]

Kireyeu et al

V. Kireyeu et al. , arXiv:2411.04969 [nucl-th] (2024)

2024 arXiv
[154]

Adamczewski-Musch et al

J. Adamczewski-Musch et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 80 (2023)

2023
[155]

Kardan, J

B. Kardan, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 742, 012008 (2016)

2016
[156]

Russotto et al

P. Russotto et al. , arXiv:2105.09233 [nucl-ex] (2021)

2021 arXiv
[157]

The LIGO Scientific Collab., the Virgo Collab., the KAGRA Collab.: for a recent report see, e.g., A. G. Abac et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 970, L34 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

B. P. Abbott et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

2017

[2] [2]

Focus Issue on the Electromagnetic Counterpart of the Neutron Star Binary Merger GW170817, Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, Number 2 (2017)

2017

[3] [3]

J. M. Lattimer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 433 (2021)

2021

[4] [4]

Watson et al

D. Watson et al. , Nature 574, 497 (2019)

2019

[5] [5]

B. P. Abbott et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018)

2018

[6] [6]

A. G. Chaves and T. Hinderer, J. Phys. G 46, 123002 (2019)

2019

[7] [7]

J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rept. 442, 109 (2007)

2007

[8] [8]

Bao-An Li, Lie-Wen Chen and Che Ming Ko, Phys. Rept. 464, 113 (2008)

2008