Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

This paper shows that measured light-cluster abundances from central Xe+Sn collisions are closely reproduced by a relativistic mean-field model only if the cluster couplings to the meson fields depend on temperature, and that the data canno

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 23:56 UTC pith:KG7ZYFJH

load-bearing objection The paper's real contribution is a clean demonstration of the xs/xomega degeneracy in RMF cluster couplings; the deuteron out-of-sample test is too weak to support the abstract's strong conclusion about equilibrium. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.11996 v1 pith:KG7ZYFJH submitted 2026-02-12 nucl-th

Medium effects on light clusters from heavy-ion collisions within a relativistic mean-field description

Tiago Cust\'odio , Francesca Gulminelli , Alex Rebillard-Souli\'e , Diego Gruyer , R\'emi Bougault , Tuhin Malik , Helena Pais , Constan\c{c}a Provid\^encia This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords light clustersin-medium effectsrelativistic mean-fieldBayesian inferenceheavy-ion collisionsdeuteronfreeze-out densitycluster self-energies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper analyzes measured mass fractions of hydrogen and helium isotopes from central Xe+Sn collisions at 32 MeV per nucleon, using Bayesian inference within a relativistic mean-field model to extract the temperature, density, and in-medium modification of cluster self-energies. It finds that the data are well reproduced only when the cluster-meson couplings vary with temperature, and that two physical pictures—an increased in-medium effective mass or an increased vector repulsion—describe the data equally well. In both scenarios, light-cluster abundances decrease with temperature more steeply than earlier constant-coupling studies predicted. The analysis also extracts a nearly constant freeze-out density across all velocity-selected samples. When deuteron data are excluded from the fit, the predicted deuteron abundance still matches the measurement, suggesting no non-equilibrium deuteron correction is required.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the measured mass fractions of hydrogen and helium isotopes from central Xe+Sn collisions are reproduced by a relativistic mean-field model in which light clusters are treated as quasiparticles, provided the cluster couplings to the meson fields are allowed to depend on temperature. It further claims that two physical pictures—a weakened scalar attraction (lower effective mass) and an enhanced vector repulsion—are indistinguishable with these data, and that both imply cluster abundances fall with temperature faster than earlier constant-coupling analyses found. A freeze-out density near 0.015 fm^-3 is extracted for all velocity-selected samples. When deutero

What carries the argument

The central object is the relativistic mean-field Lagrangian treating each light cluster (deuteron, triton, helium-3, alpha) as an independent quasiparticle coupled to sigma, omega, and rho mesons, with the cluster-meson coupling ratios x_s and x_omega as free parameters calibrated through a Bayesian likelihood to the measured mass fractions. The identity relating x_s and x_omega—decreasing scalar attraction versus increasing vector repulsion—is the mechanism that lets the two in-medium pictures produce identical abundances. The velocity-sorted event samples provide a range of temperatures and densities that constrains the temperature dependence of these couplings.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand on the assumption that each velocity-selected event sample is a thermal equilibrium ensemble, so measured mass fractions can be read as equilibrium yields at a single temperature and density.

What would settle it

A transport calculation using measured deuteron breakup and coalescence cross sections that yields deuteron multiplicities differing from equilibrium at the inferred freeze-out density would refute the claim that deuterons carry no non-equilibrium correction. Alternatively, cluster abundance data at temperatures above 10 MeV that force the scalar coupling ratio below zero would falsify the scalar-weakening picture.

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

If this is right

  • Temperature-dependent cluster couplings imply that light-cluster abundances decrease with temperature more steeply than predicted by constant-coupling fits, which affects equations of state used in supernova and neutron-star-merger modeling.
  • The analysis pins cluster formation to a nearly constant baryonic density of about 0.015 fm^-3 across all velocity bins, supporting a freeze-out or surface-decoupling picture over an expanding cooling gas.
  • Excluding deuterons from the fit leaves the predicted deuteron abundance compatible with data, so deuterons can be treated as equilibrium species without needing additional non-equilibrium production or breakup mechanisms.
  • The two in-medium pictures (weakened scalar attraction vs enhanced vector repulsion) give the same thermodynamic conditions and abundances within the data range; their predictions diverge only near densities where clusters dissolve.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The scalar-vector degeneracy means cluster abundances alone cannot identify the microscopic mechanism of in-medium modification; momentum or correlation observables would be needed to separate the two pictures.
  • If the calibrated temperature-dependent couplings are extrapolated to temperatures above those probed here, they predict lower cluster abundances in neutron-star merger ejecta, which would shift nucleosynthesis yields; this is testable in astrophysical models.
  • The deuteron-exclusion test is a general model-checking template: any species suspected of non-equilibrium contamination can be held out of the fit and the posterior prediction compared with data, as was done here for deuterons and could be done for helium-6.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes INDRA data for central 136,124Xe+124,112Sn collisions at 32 MeV/nucleon, using a Bayesian framework to infer the temperature, baryonic density, and cluster-meson coupling ratios within a relativistic mean-field (RMF) model. The authors consider two RMF parametrizations (FSU and DD2) and investigate two complementary descriptions of in-medium effects: a reduced scalar coupling x_s (with x_omega fixed to 1) and an enhanced vector coupling x_omega (with x_s fixed to 1). They find that both descriptions reproduce the measured H and He isotopic mass fractions equally well and yield the same thermodynamic parameters, demonstrating a degeneracy between x_s and x_omega. Both couplings show a temperature dependence (x_s decreasing, x_omega increasing with T), which leads to a faster decrease of light-cluster abundances with temperature than predicted by the constant-coupling analysis of previous work. The paper also explores possible out-of-equilibrium effects on the deuteron by excluding deuteron data from the Bayesian fit, and reports that the predicted deuteron fraction is compatible with the experimental data, concluding that there is no a priori need for non-equilibrium effects.

Significance. If the inferred temperature-dependent cluster couplings are reliable, they have direct implications for the construction of equations of state for warm, low-density nuclear matter in astrophysical environments such as supernovae and neutron-star mergers. The paper's strengths are its use of two very different RMF parametrizations (FSU and DD2), its explicit treatment of the x_s-x_omega degeneracy, and its attempt to probe the equilibrium assumption through a deuteron-exclusion test. The consistency of the extracted thermodynamic parameters across four entrance channels (Fig. 8) is a useful cross-check. However, the central conclusions rest on the assumption that each vsurf-selected sample is chemically equilibrated, and, as discussed below, the deuteron out-of-sample test does not provide strong supporting evidence for that assumption. The paper is generally transparent about this limitation, but the abstract overstates the robustness of the conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.C, Figs. 8-11] The deuteron-exclusion test is used to support the abstract's claim that 'there is no a priori need of accounting for non-equilibrium effects.' However, the test has low statistical power. When deuteron data are removed, the posterior distributions for (T, ρ) and especially for x_s broaden dramatically (Fig. 13, left and right panels), and the authors themselves note 'large uncertainties are observed' in Section IV.A. A prediction made from a much broader posterior is almost guaranteed to be 'well compatible' with the data, so the agreement shown in Fig. 12 carries little evidential weight. Moreover, Fig. 15 explicitly shows that a vsurf-dependent deuteron suppression (the red line scenario) can reconcile the data with a constant x_s ≈ 0.92, which is the value that would erase the claimed temperature dependence. Thus the analysis does not demonstrate the absence of out-of-equilibrium eff
  2. [Section II.C] The temperature dependence of x_s and x_omega is established by quadratic fits to the posterior values obtained from the same experimental mass fractions used in the inference. The abundance predictions in Figs. 10 and 11 are then computed with these fitted functions. This is a legitimate way to summarize the inference, but it does not constitute an independent validation of the 'faster weakening' claim. The comparison with the constant x_s = 0.92 from Refs. [18,19] mixes two effects: the use of full mass fractions versus reduced chemical equilibrium constants, and the allowance of temperature-dependent couplings. The paper should clarify that the faster weakening is a consequence of the adopted analysis scheme rather than a model-independent prediction. Otherwise, a reader may interpret Figs. 10-11 as an out-of-sample test, which they are not.
  3. [Section II.B] The equilibrium hypothesis is the load-bearing premise of the analysis. Section II.C correctly states that the vsurf sorting is not an a-priori guarantee of thermal character, and that validity must be verified a-posteriori. The verification presented, however, is not decisive. The consistency of x_s across entrance channels (Fig. 8) tests that the same (T, ρ) gives the same coupling, but it would not detect a common out-of-equilibrium bias. The deuteron-exclusion test is the only species-specific probe, and, as argued above, its statistical power is too low to distinguish equilibrium from non-equilibrium deuteron contributions. Therefore the inferred x_s(T) and x_omega(T) trends remain conditional on the equilibrium assumption. The authors should either (i) quantify the impact of a deuteron bias on the inferred x_s(T) by, e.g., including a deuteron-bias parameter in the likelihood, or (
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II.A / Eq. (8)] The reduced mass fractions in Eq. (22) sum over 'n, 1H, 3H, 3He, 4He', but the neutron multiplicity Y_n is not defined. Is it derived from the estimated proton fraction y_p and the measured proton yield? Please clarify the construction of the experimental reduced fractions.
  2. [Section II.C] In Eq. (8), the Pauli-blocking shift δB_j uses the saturation density ρ0 in the denominator. The text does not explain why ρ0, rather than the local gas density, appears; a brief justification or reference would help.
  3. [Section III.A] The flat priors on θ = {ρ, T, x} are mentioned but their numerical ranges are not given. Bayesian posteriors can depend on prior bounds, especially in the no-deuteron case where the posterior is broad. Please specify the prior intervals for reproducibility.
  4. [Section IV.A] In Fig. 2, the y-axis label 'B x 100 (fm^3)' is confusing; it should presumably read 'ρ (fm^-3)'. Also, in the Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 captions, the fixed proton fraction is denoted y_q; this should be y_p.
  5. [Section IV.A] The sentence 'the deuteron channel should not be removed from the thermodynamic equilibrium calculated with RMF' is potentially confusing when read next to the reduced mass fraction definition. Please clarify how the model reduced fractions are computed (i.e., that the RMF calculation includes deuterons in the equilibrium, but the denominator in Eq. (22) omits them for both data and model).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No by-construction circularity; the deuteron test is a genuine (if low-powered) out-of-sample prediction, and the xs(T) baseline is self-cited but independently corroborated by this paper's new xω analysis.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract; Section III.C (Evaluation of the degeneracy between xs and xω); Fig. 10 caption]
    "In both cases, the temperature dependence of the meson couplings leads to a faster weakening of the light cluster abundances with temperature than previous studies predicted. ... As in Ref. [20], where a quadratic fit was performed to model the evolution of xs with T, the same can be done to describe the temperature dependence of xω."

    The σ-channel leg of the abstract's central temperature-dependence claim is not re-derived in this paper: the per-bin (T, ρ, xs) posteriors and the quadratic fit xs(T) = aT² + bT + c are taken from Ref. [20], a same-author paper, and Fig. 10 'predicts' cluster abundances by evaluating the model at that self-cited fit, so this leg is the self-cited fit folded through the model rather than an independent test. This is minor rather than 6-level because Section III.C independently infers xω(T) from the same INDRA data, obtains the same (T, ρ) posteriors (Fig. 7), and exhibits the same abundance weakening; the self-citation is corroborated rather than the sole basis.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation chain is a Bayesian inference of (ρ, T, xs or xω) from measured H/He mass fractions (INDRA data), followed by a deuteron-exclusion test. The 'excellent description' of the fitted species is explicitly labeled as data reproduction with optimized parameters (Section II.C: 'The first obvious requirement is the quality of the data reproduction by the model with optimised parameters'), not as an independent prediction, so no fitted input is renamed as a prediction there. The one true prediction is the deuteron, excluded from the likelihood (Eq. 23) and from the renormalized experimental fractions (Eq. 22), so it is not statistically forced by construction; however its power is low, as the paper itself admits ('large uncertainties are observed' in Section IV.A; 'the prediction is not in contradiction with a possible overproduction or underproduction of deuteron' in Section IV.B; Fig. 15 shows predicted deuteron fractions spanning roughly 0.10-0.24 with the data in the middle), making 'well compatible' in the abstract a weak evidential claim. This is a correctness/robustness caveat, not circularity. The equilibrium premise itself is flagged in Section II.C as not guaranteed a priori by the vsurf sorting, and the paper's a-posteriori checks (Fig. 8 entrance-channel agreement; the deuteron out-of-sample test) are the operative tests. Self-citations are present (Ref. [20] for the xs(T) baseline; Ref. [28] for the isoscaling indication of statistical samples), but the xω(T) analysis in Section III.C is derived here from the raw data and reproduces the same thermodynamics, so the central temperature-dependence claim has independent content and does not reduce to a self-citation chain. No uniqueness theorem is imported; the paper instead demonstrates the xs-xω degeneracy itself. Overall, no step is equivalent to its input by construction; score 2 reflects a minor self-citation and the weak, hedged deuteron test rather than substantive circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central inference depends on assumed equilibrium statistics, the RMF quasiparticle model, the Pauli-blocking shift, and the functional forms chosen for the couplings. The thermodynamic variables T and rho and the coupling ratios xs/xomega are free parameters fitted to the same mass fractions, plus quadratic fits to the inferred couplings. No new particles, forces, or other invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • xs (scalar cluster coupling ratio) per sample = ~0.80-0.95, decreasing with T (FSU; Ref[20])
    Inferred for each vsurf bin and entrance channel in the sigma-calibration; directly controls cluster effective masses.
  • xomega (vector cluster coupling ratio) per sample = ~1.0-1.2, increasing with T (FSU, Fig. 8)
    Inferred in the alternative calibration with xs=1; reproduces the same mass-fraction data as the xs calibration.
  • T (temperature) per vsurf bin = ~6-10 MeV
    Thermodynamic parameter inferred from mass fractions; strongly correlated with density in the deuteron-excluded analysis.
  • rho (baryonic density) per vsurf bin = ~0.01-0.02 fm^-3
    Inferred from mass fractions; the authors note posterior values fluctuate with technical details of the sampling.
  • Quadratic fit coefficients a,b,c for xomega(T) = FSU: 0.00210, -0.01370, 1.09969; DD2: 0.00179, -0.01285, 1.08846
    Fit to the inferred xomega posteriors; used to generate abundance predictions and extrapolations in Figs. 10-11.
  • Quadratic fit coefficients a,b,c for xs(T) = not given; from Ref[20]
    Used in the xs/xomega comparison of Figs. 10-11 but not reproduced in this paper.
  • Quadratic coefficients a1-a3, b1-b3 for rho(vsurf), T(vsurf) in Sec. IIIA = not reported numerically
    Auxiliary parametrization tested in Sec. IIIA and replaced by per-bin inference; still free parameters in that scheme.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Statistical equilibrium of velocity-binned samples; each bin described by single (T, rho) and equilibrium mass fractions
    Invoked throughout; the paper itself cautions in Sec. II.C that vsurf sorting is not an a-priori guarantee of thermal character.
  • domain assumption RMF quasiparticle description of clusters with meson-nucleon and meson-cluster couplings
    Eqs. (1)-(6); cluster self-energies are reduced to coupling ratios xs, xomega. If the quasiparticle picture fails, the inferred couplings are not physical.
  • domain assumption Pauli-blocking binding shift deltaBj given by Eq. (8)
    Taken from Ref. [23]; enters the effective mass M*_j and directly shapes the temperature/density dependence of cluster abundances.
  • domain assumption Flat priors and Gaussian likelihood with independent experimental uncertainties
    Eqs. (15)-(16); standard Bayesian modeling choices, not derived from the physics.
  • ad hoc to paper 6He excluded from the analysis
    Section II.B; exclusion is justified by isoscaling deviations attributed to finite-size effects in Ref. [28], not by the RMF model itself.
  • ad hoc to paper Quadratic temperature dependence xs(T)=aT^2+bT+c and xomega(T)=aT^2+bT+c
    Section III.C and Table I; no microscopic derivation, used to predict abundances in Figs. 10-11 and to extrapolate beyond the data.
  • domain assumption Proton fraction yp(vsurf) fixed from experimental neutron/proton reconstruction
    Sec. IV.A; needed to reduce parameter space. If the experimental yp is biased, the inferred T, rho, and xs shift.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20024 in / 13235 out tokens · 112714 ms · 2026-08-02T23:56:24.647636+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Central $^{136,124}$Xe$+^{124,112}$Sn collisions from INDRA data are analysed using a Bayesian inference on light nuclei multiplicities to estimate the thermodynamical parameters and in-medium modification of the cluster self-energies within a relativistic mean-field model. An excellent description of experimentally measured abundances of H and He isotopes is obtained. We examine two possible modelling of in-medium effects as an increased in-medium effective mass, or an increased vector repulsion. We show that these physical pictures cannot be discriminated by the data. In both cases, the temperature dependence of the meson couplings leads to a faster weakening of the light cluster abundances with temperature than previous studies predicted. Possible systematic errors due to out-of-equilibrium effects affecting the experimental abundances, are considered by repeating the Bayesian inference with reduced information. The abundance prediction of the species excluded from the constraint is well compatible with the experimental data, suggesting that there is no a priori need of accounting for non-equilibrium effects or finite state interactions that potentially affect the deuteron yield.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.11996 by Alex Rebillard-Souli\'e, Constan\c{c}a Provid\^encia, Diego Gruyer, Francesca Gulminelli, Helena Pais, R\'emi Bougault, Tiago Cust\'odio, Tuhin Malik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Experimental (dots) and theoretical (bands) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison between extracted values of tem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior distributions histogram of the ef [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experimental (black symbols) and theoreti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Bayesian estimation of the thermodynamical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Posterior distributions of the effective cluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Total mass fraction predictions as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between particles mass fractions as a function of the baryonic density obtained considering the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Experimental (black symbols) and theoretical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Each color represents a different vsurf(cm/ns) bin ranging from 4.1 (bottom) to 6.5 cm/ns (top) and each dot corresponds to a particular sample of the posterior distribution obtained after performing the Bayesian inference without the deuteron data. The unfilled black contours correspond to the 2-σ posterior distributions obtained in Ref.[20] for the FSU RMF model. Left: Bayesian estimation of the thermod… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Theoretical prediction of proton (1H) and 4He mass fractions for FSU RMF model taking as xs the temperature dependent xs(T) fit performed in Ref.[20]. The range of ρ and T displayed here correspond to those attained by the vsurf = 4.1cm/ns bin (see Fig.13). Black circle represents the 4He mass fraction for the lower vsurf bin in Ref.[20]. Left: Mass fractions as a function of ρ for fixed values of T. Righ… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Posterior distributions of the deuteron mass fractions as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arcones, G

    A. Arcones, G. Martínez-Pinedo, E. O’Connor, A. Schwenk, H.-T. Janka, C. J. Horowitz, and K. Lan- ganke, Phys. Rev. C 78, 015806 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    Sumiyoshi and G

    K. Sumiyoshi and G. Roepke, Phys. Rev. C 77, 055804 (2008)

    2008

  3. [3]

    Furusawa, H

    S. Furusawa, H. Nagakura, K. Sumiyoshi, and S. Ya- mada, Astrophys. J. 774, 78 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Bauswein, S

    A. Bauswein, S. Goriely, and H. T. Janka, Astrophys. J. 773, 78 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Rosswog, Int

    S. Rosswog, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, 1530012 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Radice, A

    D. Radice, A. Perego, K. Hotokezaka, S. A. Fromm, S. Bernuzzi, and L. F. Roberts, Astrophys. J. 869, 130 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    G. Navó, M. Reichert, M. Obergaulinger, and A. Arcones, Astrophys. J. 951, 112 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Psaltis, M

    A. Psaltis, M. Jacobi, F. Montes, A. Arcones, C. J. Hansen, and H. Schatz, Astrophys. J. 966, 11 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    Oertel et al., Rev

    M. Oertel et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015007 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Ropke, Nucl

    G. Ropke, Nucl. Phys. A 867, 66 (2011) , arXiv:1101.4685 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  11. [11]

    Röpke, Phys

    G. Röpke, Phys. Rev. C 92, 054001 (2015) , arXiv:1411.4593 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Röpke, Phys

    G. Röpke, Phys. Rev. C 101, 064310 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Z. Ren, S. Elhatisari, T. A. Lähde, D. Lee, and U.-G. MeiSSner, Physics Letters B 850, 138463 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Typel, M

    S. Typel, M. Oertel, and T. Klähn, Phys. Part. Nucl. 46, 633 (2015) , arXiv:1307.5715 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Typel, G

    S. Typel, G. Ropke, T. Klahn, D. Blaschke, and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C 81, 015803 (2010) , arXiv:0908.2344 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  16. [16]

    H. Pais, F. Gulminelli, C. Providência, and G. Röpke, Phys. Rev. C 99, 055806 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    Qin et al., Phys

    L. Qin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 172701 (2012) , arXiv:1110.3345 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  18. [18]

    Pais et al., J

    H. Pais et al., J. Phys. G 47, 105204 (2020) , arXiv:2006.07256 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Pais et al., Phys

    H. Pais et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 012701 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    Custódio, A

    T. Custódio, A. Rebillard-Soulié, R. Bougault, D. Gruyer, F. Gulminelli, T. Malik, H. Pais, and C. Providência, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 082304 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    Ferreira and C

    M. Ferreira and C. Providencia, Phys. Rev. C 85, 055811 (2012), arXiv:1206.0139 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    H. Pais, S. Chiacchiera, and C. Providência, Phys. Rev. C 91, 055801 (2015) , arXiv:1504.03964 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    H. Pais, F. Gulminelli, C. Providência, and G. Röpke, Phys. Rev. C 97, 045805 (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    B. G. Todd-Rutel and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 122501 (2005) , arXiv:nucl-th/0504034

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  25. [25]

    Custódio et al., Eur

    T. Custódio et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 295 (2020) , arXiv:2009.14035 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Bougault et al

    R. Bougault et al. (INDRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 97, 024612 (2018)

    2018

  27. [27]

    Bougault et al., J

    R. Bougault et al., J. Phys. G 47, 025103 (2020) , arXiv:1911.08355 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Rebillard-Soulié et al., J

    A. Rebillard-Soulié et al., J. Phys. G 51, 015104 (2024) , arXiv:2311.05392 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Gelman, J

    A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, D. B. Dunson, A. Vehtari, and D. B. Rubin, Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd ed. (CRC Press, 2013)

    2013

  30. [30]

    Buchner, A

    J. Buchner, A. Georgakakis, K. Nandra, L. Hsu, C. Rangel, M. Brightman, A. Merloni, M. Salvato, J. Donley, and D. Kocevski, Astron. Astrophys. 564, A125 (2014) , arXiv:1402.0004 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    Buchner, Statistics Surveys 17, 169 (2023)

    J. Buchner, Statistics Surveys 17, 169 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    Skilling, AIP Conference Proceedings 735, 395 (2004) , https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1835238

    J. Skilling, AIP Conference Proceedings 735, 395 (2004) , https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1835238

    doi:10.1063/1.1835238 2004

  33. [33]

    Rebillard-Soulie, Theses, Normandie Université (2024)

    A. Rebillard-Soulie, Theses, Normandie Université (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Albergo et al., Il Nuovo Cimento A 89, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02773614 (1985)

    S. Albergo et al., Il Nuovo Cimento A 89, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02773614 (1985)

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02773614 1985