Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 68 references

This paper shows that a density-dependent Pauli-blocking cutoff adds rearrangement terms to the chemical potentials and pressure of clusterized nuclear matter, pulling the spinodal region back to that of pure symmetric nuclear matter.

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 19:27 UTC pith:IGO7GRHZ

load-bearing objection Solid formal core: the density-dependent cutoff is handled consistently, and the spinodal shifts are credible; the main caveat is that the cutoff itself is fitted, not derived. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.02060 v2 pith:IGO7GRHZ submitted 2026-03-02 nucl-th

Spinodal instability in nuclear matter with light cluster degrees of freedom

Stefano Burrello , Carmelo Piazza , Rui Wang , Maria Colonna This is my paper
classification nucl-th PACS 21.65.+f25.70.Pq
keywords spinodal instabilitynuclear matterlight clustersPauli blockingMott momentumfree-energy curvaturechemical potential rearrangementliquid-gas phase transition
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.

This paper asks how light nuclear clusters (deuterons and alpha particles) change the liquid-gas spinodal instability of warm, dilute nuclear matter once Pauli blocking is treated self-consistently. The authors encode Pauli blocking through an infrared momentum cutoff in the cluster distribution functions and show that, when that cutoff depends on density, thermodynamic consistency forces extra rearrangement terms into the chemical potentials and an extra pressure term into the Euler equations. Including those terms, they find, removes the spurious enlargement of the spinodal region caused by clusters and brings the instability boundary back close to that of pure symmetric nuclear matter. They also find that a sufficiently stiff density dependence of the cutoff reverses the phase of the unstable mode: clusters fluctuate out of phase with nucleons and are pushed to low density, while a softer cutoff lets clusters cooperate with nucleons.

Core claim

The central claim is that a density-dependent infrared cutoff, introduced to model the Mott suppression of light clusters, changes the thermodynamics of nuclear matter in a way that cannot be captured by simply plugging the cutoff into the density integrals. Equations (9)-(11) show that the chemical potentials acquire rearrangement terms from the density derivatives of the cutoff; the first hydrodynamic moment gains an extra pressure term; and these contributions modify the free-energy curvature matrix that controls spinodal stability. With the rearrangement terms included, the spinodal boundary of clusterized matter lies close to that of pure symmetric nuclear matter rather than being subst

What carries the argument

The central object is the density- and temperature-dependent infrared momentum cutoff lambda_c(rho_b,T) (the cluster Mott momentum), which removes low-momentum bound states from the phase space. All new physics flows from its density dependence: the rearrangement chemical potential, the rearrangement single-particle energy, and the extra pressure term appearing in the Euler equations. The analysis is carried by the free-energy curvature matrix C, whose eigenvectors give the normal modes of density fluctuation and whose negative eigenvalues mark the onset of spinodal instability.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Pauli blocking can be represented by a sharp infrared momentum cutoff while clusters keep their vacuum binding energies; if the real in-medium effect is instead a momentum-dependent shift of the cluster binding energy, the rearrangement terms—and with them the predicted spinodal boundary and mode phases—could change materially.

What would settle it

A direct calculation of the spinodal of clusterized matter using momentum-dependent in-medium binding energies (for example by solving the in-medium two- and four-body problem) that shows no return of the spinodal boundary to the pure-nucleon curve would falsify the central claim; experimentally, measuring whether deuteron and alpha densities fluctuate in phase or out of phase with nucleon density during the spinodal phase of a heavy-ion collision would settle the mode-character prediction.

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

If this is right

  • If the rearrangement terms are dropped, light clusters spuriously widen the spinodal region; with them included, the spinodal boundary of clusterized matter is close to that of pure symmetric nuclear matter.
  • A stiff density-dependent cutoff makes clusters fluctuate out of phase with nucleons inside the spinodal region, pushing clusters toward low-density regions while nucleonic density fluctuations grow.
  • A soft cutoff allows clusters to survive at moderate density; they then fluctuate in phase with nucleons and can act as seeds for intermediate-mass fragment formation.
  • The thermodynamic free-energy criterion and the Vlasov dynamical criterion differ when the density-dependent cutoff is fully included, with the difference controlled by the extra pressure term and confined mainly to high temperature.
  • The predicted cluster-nucleon phase relation gives concrete expectations for multifragmentation in heavy-ion collisions and for the formation of nonuniform structures in neutron-star crusts: out-of-phase motion means clusters end up in the dilute phase, while in-phase motion means they reinforce nucleonic instabilities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to measure cluster-nucleon density anticorrelation in spinodal breakup of heavy-ion collisions; if clusters always move in phase with nucleons regardless of cutoff stiffness, the out-of-phase branch predicted here would be ruled out.
  • The same formalism suggests that energy-weighted observables (for example cluster kinetic energies) should differ from number-weighted ones at the instability onset, because out-of-phase motion implies clusters are expelled toward low density with a distinct dynamical signature.
  • The spinodal boundary's robustness to binding-energy and screening-factor choices is argued only within the sharp-cutoff, fixed-vacuum-binding quasiparticle picture; if a momentum-dependent in-medium binding shift is the physically correct description, both the boundary location and mode character could change, making comparison with such microscopic calculations the natural next step.
  • The disjoint low-density instability region found for the soft alpha parametrization is a model-sensitive prediction; verifying it would require stronger microscopic constraints on the alpha Mott momentum and on continuum correlations.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the thermodynamic stability of warm, dilute isospin-symmetric nuclear matter with deuterons and alpha particles as explicit degrees of freedom. Pauli blocking is represented by an infrared momentum cutoff lambda_c(rho_b,T) in the phase-space integrals. The central formal claim is that a density-dependent cutoff requires rearrangement contributions to the chemical potentials (Eq. 11) and to the single-particle energies, and an additional pressure term in the first hydrodynamic moment (Appendices A-C). On this basis the authors construct the free-energy curvature matrix, compute spinodal boundaries for several cutoff parameterizations, and characterize the unstable eigenmodes. With the rearrangement terms included, the spinodal region is close to that of pure symmetric nuclear matter; for a sufficiently stiff cutoff, cluster density fluctuations become out of phase with nucleonic ones. The thermodynamic results are compared with the linearized-Vlasov analysis of Ref. [50].

Significance. The formal part is potentially valuable: Appendix A gives an explicit derivation of the rearrangement chemical potentials, Appendix B verifies the symmetry of the curvature matrix, and the limiting cases in which the thermodynamic and Vlasov spinodals coincide are clearly identified. The physical predictions are concrete and falsifiable in principle, and the paper is candid about model dependence. However, the headline mode-reversal and the 'return' of the spinodal to the SNM boundary are sensitive to how the cutoff is calibrated, and I find a technical issue in the moment derivation of Appendix C that needs attention before the hydrodynamic claims can be accepted. If the formal issues are resolved, the paper would be a useful bridge between thermodynamic stability analyses and Vlasov-based descriptions of clusterized matter.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, Eqs. (C3) and (26)] The first line of Eq. (C3) states g_j integral_{|p|>Lambda_j} dp d_t f_j = d_t rho_j. When Lambda_j depends on the local densities, the time derivative of the lower limit contributes an additional boundary term proportional to f_j(Lambda_j) d_t Lambda_j; the equality as written omits this term. Consequently the continuity equation in Eq. (26) should contain a source term when the cutoff is density dependent, not the standard conservation form. This affects the claim in Sec. IIF that the linearized Euler equations yield the same spinodal as the Vlasov matrix. The authors should either include the boundary term or explicitly define the distribution function as truncated and redo the moments over all momentum space, and then show whether the Euler-equation spinodal still coincides with Eq. (31). The free-energy curvature analysis in Appendices A-B is not affected.
  2. [IIIB.1, Table I, Figs. 3, 5, 10] The 'stiff' cutoff parameterization is obtained by fitting Eqs. (35)-(36) to the RMF cluster mass fractions of Ref. [6], which, as the paper acknowledges in Sec. IIIB.1, include continuum correlations, tritons, and 3He. Since the rearrangement terms mu_tilde_j, epsilon_tilde_j, and P_tilde are all proportional to d lambda_c / d rho_j, the out-of-phase pattern (negative Delta_d and Delta_alpha) and the restoration of the SNM-like spinodal are not a consequence of Pauli blocking alone but inherit this calibration. This is a load-bearing physical assumption. I request a diagnostic that isolates the pure Pauli-blocking contribution, e.g., a comparison with a microscopically derived Mott momentum, or an explicit statement that the out-of-phase prediction is specific to a stiff effective parameterization rather than a generic in-medium effect.
  3. [IIA and IIIB.3] The model encodes all medium modifications through a sharp momentum cutoff while retaining vacuum binding energies and neglecting continuum correlations. Section IIIB.3 defers momentum-dependent binding-energy shifts to Ref. [66]. If the actual in-medium effect is a momentum-dependent B_c(p,rho_b,T), the functional derivative in Eq. (18) and the moment equations in Appendix C change, and the derived mu_tilde and P_tilde would no longer be the complete rearrangement terms. A quantitative sensitivity test with a simple momentum-dependent binding shift would substantially strengthen the claim that the reported mode character is a property of in-medium effects rather than of the sharp-cutoff ansatz. At minimum, the conclusions should be explicitly scoped to the sharp-cutoff, vacuum-binding picture.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (11)] The notation lambda_c is used before its definition; define lambda_c = Lambda_c^2/(2 m_c) immediately before Eq. (11).
  2. [Fig. 4] The caption calls the 'hybrid' case 'dash-dotted', while the main text calls it 'dotted'. Please unify the terminology.
  3. [Eq. (22)] The sign of the Phi-term in Eq. (22) is not intuitively obvious. A sentence explaining the physical origin of the minus sign would help the reader connect the linearized Vlasov system with the determinant in Eq. (31).
  4. [Figs. 1-3, 8-10] The panel labels 'w w/o' are cryptic; spell out 'with/without in-medium effects' in the captions or use clearer legends.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the rearrangement-term derivation is self-contained; the cutoff calibration is model input, not a disguised prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central formal claim—that a density-dependent infrared cutoff generates additional chemical-potential terms (Eqs. 9, 11) and an extra Euler pressure term ∇P̃ (Eqs. 26, C16–C17)—is derived from first principles within the paper. Appendix A obtains μ̃_j by a direct chain-rule variation of the free-energy functional Eq. (7), and Appendix C derives the first hydrodynamic moment including the boundary variation of the momentum integrals. These derivations do not import the result from self-citations or from fitted data; they follow from the stated definitions of the distribution functions and the free-energy functional. The cutoff parametrization λ_c(ρ_b,T) (Eqs. 35–37) is an input ansatz, admittedly fitted to benchmark RMF or excluded-volume cluster fractions (Table I). This calibration is model dependence, not circularity: the spinodal boundaries and mode character are derived quantities, not the same as the fitted mass fractions, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that the stiff parameterization 'effectively incorporates additional physical contributions such as continuum correlations and the presence of other cluster species' and that momentum-dependent binding-energy shifts are beyond scope (Sec. IIIB.1, IIIB.3). These are honest limitations and sensitivity checks, not constructional equivalences. Prior work by the same authors (Refs. [13,50]) is used as a starting point and comparison, but the load-bearing derivations are self-contained. No uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled through citation, and no fitted variable is renamed as a prediction. Residual concerns, if any, are about physical model plausibility, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central formal result (rearrangement terms) is derived from the free-energy functional with no new entities. The predictive physics, however, rests on 13+ cutoff-parameter values fitted to benchmark mass fractions (Table I), on the Skyrme interaction of Ref. [20], on the ad hoc sharp-cutoff ansatz of Sec. IIA, and on imposed chemical equilibrium. The paper is transparent about most of these inputs.

free parameters (5)
  • Deuteron cutoff parameters (beta_d, gamma_d, xi_d, nu_d) = Ref. [50]: beta_d=4.400e2 fm^3gamma MeV, gamma_d=2/3, xi_d=1, nu_d=2; soft: 1.5271e2, 0.5337, 3.0954, 1.5589; stiff: 9.5
    Define the density dependence of the deuteron Mott-momentum cutoff (Eqs. 35-36); fitted to reproduce deuteron mass fractions from RMF (Ref. [6], stiff) or phase-space excluded-volume (Ref. [13], soft). The spinodal boundary and in/out-of-phase mode structure depend on these values.
  • Alpha cutoff parameters (beta_alpha, gamma_alpha, xi_alpha, nu_alpha) = soft: 2.8919e2, 0.6296, 1.8788, 1.5369; stiff: 14.055e2, 0.88746, 66.624, 0.00310
    Same role for alpha particles; fitted to alpha mass fractions from Refs. [6]/[13]. The two-species spinodal results are sensitive to these.
  • Mott-density coefficients (a_c, b_c, c_c) = Table I: e.g., deuteron stiff a_d=1.0394e-2 fm^-3, b_d=-7.6642e-4 fm^-3 MeV^-1, c_d=8.5786e-5 fm^-3 MeV^-2
    Temperature dependence of the Mott density (Eq. 37), fitted to Mott densities / mass-fraction maxima at T = 5, 8, 11 MeV.
  • Mean-field screening factor eta = 1 (standard case); 0.7 explored
    Chosen by hand to model reduced nucleon-meson coupling for nucleons bound in clusters (Eq. 34); the paper shows the full spinodal region is weakly sensitive to it, but the low-density branch is not.
  • Skyrme-like interaction parameters = From Ref. [20], not quoted in this paper
    The mean-field potential U follows a simplified Skyrme-like effective interaction from Ref. [20]; taken as input from prior literature, not derived or fitted here.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Sharp infrared cutoff fully encodes Pauli blocking; clusters retain vacuum binding energies; continuum correlations are neglected
    Sec. IIA: this is the modeling device that generates mu_tilde_j, epsilon_tilde_j, and P_tilde. The paper states it as an assumption and acknowledges continuum correlations are neglected.
  • standard math Chemical potentials obtained as mu_j = dF/drho_j at fixed other densities (Eq. 8)
    Standard thermodynamics of the grand potential; Appendix A builds on it, including variation of the cutoff boundary.
  • domain assumption Chemical equilibrium mu_c = A_c mu_nuc imposed as the reference initial state (Eq. 38)
    Sec. III: stated as a 'convenient reference for calibrating in-medium effects'; the paper notes it could be relaxed to arbitrary cluster chemical potentials.
  • domain assumption No Bose-Einstein condensation at T >= 5 MeV
    Sec. IIB: the temperature domain of interest lies beyond the critical BEC temperature for light clusters, further suppressed by the momentum cutoff.
  • domain assumption Lindhard functions set to chi_q = chi_d = 1 when connecting Vlasov and thermodynamic spinodals
    Sec. IIF: the equality of Vlasov and thermodynamic spinodal zeros in the density-independent and hybrid cases relies on this long-wavelength/homogeneous limit.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26147 in / 17611 out tokens · 151514 ms · 2026-08-02T19:27:56.653593+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the thermodynamical stability of low-density isospin-symmetric nuclear matter at finite temperature, explicitly including light clusters as degrees of freedom. Within a generalized mean-field framework, we compute the curvature matrix of the free-energy density and determine the spinodal region, identifying the conditions under which mechanically unstable modes may develop in the presence of clustering. Particular attention is devoted to the formal consequences of introducing an infrared momentum cutoff in the density and current moments, which effectively accounts for Pauli-blocking effects and the associated reduction of low-momentum quasiparticle states in the medium. We show that when the cutoff is density dependent, thermodynamic consistency requires additional contributions to the chemical potentials and extra terms also appear in the first hydrodynamic moment, influencing both the stability analysis and the location of the spinodal boundary. We further examine the character of the unstable modes and find that a sufficiently stiff density dependence of the cutoff may drive clusters to fluctuate out of phase with nucleons, pushing them toward low-density regions while nucleonic instabilities grow, in contrast with the in-phase pattern obtained when in-medium effects are neglected. Our results shed new light on the role of light clusters in the phase dynamics of warm, dilute nuclear matter, with implications for heavy-ion collisions and for the physics of neutron-star crusts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.02060 by Carmelo Piazza, Maria Colonna, Rui Wang, Stefano Burrello.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Deuteron mass fraction Xd as a function of the total baryon density ρb for different values of γd (top panel) and ξd (bottom panel). The insets show the density dependence of the corresponding infrared cutoff parametrizations. As a general feature, all curves exhibit the charac￾teristic rise-and-fall behavior of the deuteron mass frac￾tion, with a maximum reached around the Mott density. Below this density… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Eigenvalue ℓ d S1 (see text) as a function of the total baryon density ρb for different values of γd (top panel) and ξd (bottom panel). The full calculations (solid lines) are com￾pared with the case in which the density dependence of the cutoff parameterizations is neglected in the stability analysis (Φ dj = 0) (dashed lines) and with the pure nucleonic case (SNM, grey dotted line). The insets show the co… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The quantity ∆d (see text) as a function of the total baryon density ρb for different values of γd (top panel) and ξd (bottom panel). The full calculations (solid lines) are com￾pared with the case in which the density dependence of the cutoff parameterizations is neglected in the stability analysis (Φ dj = 0) (dashed lines). The insets show the corresponding behavior of the isoscalar-cluster component of … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spinodal border in the (ρb, T) plane for nuclear mat￾ter with deuterons under different prescriptions: (i) neglect￾ing in-medium effects (Φ dj = 0) (dashed lines); (ii) “hybrid” case (dash-dotted lines); and (iii) full inclusion of in-medium effects (solid lines). The red curves correspond to the linear￾response (Vlasov) results of Ref. [50], while the blue curves represent the present thermodynamic stabil… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The quantity ∆d (see text) as a function of the total baryon density ρb for nuclear matter with deuterons, obtained by neglecting (dashed lines) or fully including (solid lines) in-medium effects, at three different temperatures. The red curves, drawn only inside the spinodal region, correspond to the linear-response (Vlasov) results of Ref. [50], while the blue curves represent the thermodynamic stability… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Kinetic energy cutoff for deuterons (blue) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cluster mass fractions Xc (c = d, α) as functions of the total baryon density ρb at T = 8 MeV. Dashed lines correspond to calculations in which only one cluster species is included at a time, whereas solid lines represent the simulta￾neous inclusion of both species. For the latter case, the total cluster fraction Xd+α = Xd + Xα is also shown (red lines). Two cutoff parametrizations are considered: soft (to… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Eigenvalues ℓ c S1 (see text) as function of the to￾tal baryon density ρb, at T = 8 MeV, in the case where the density dependence of the cutoff is neglected in the stabil￾ity analysis (Φ cj = 0). Dashed blue (green) lines correspond to calculations in which only deuterons (alphas) are included at a time, whereas red solid lines represent the simultaneous inclusion of both species. The corresponding eigenva… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Eigenvalue ℓ d+α S1 (see text) as function of the total baryon density ρb, at T = 8 MeV, as obtained in the case of the simultaneous inclusion of both cluster species, for the two cutoff parametrizations considered: soft (top panel) and stiff (bottom panel). Dashed (solid) lines correspond to cal￾culations neglecting (fully including) in-medium effects. The corresponding eigenvalue for pure nucleonic matte… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Quantities ∆d and ∆α (see text) as functions of the total baryon density ρb at T = 8 MeV. Dashed (solid) lines correspond to calculations neglecting (fully including) in-medium effects. The left panels refer to calculations in which only one light cluster species (d for ∆d, α for ∆α) is included at a time, whereas the right panels show the case where both species are simultaneously considered. The top (bo… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Spinodal border in the (ρb, T) plane obtained for different values of the screening factor η or the binding energy Bc, by neglecting (dashed lines) or fully including (solid lines) in-medium effects. The spinodal boundary for pure nucleonic matter (gray) is shown for reference. The inset displays the density dependence of the total cluster mass fraction Xd+α at T = 8 MeV. the calculation, such as binding … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Spinodal border in the (ρb, T) plane, as obtained for the two cutoff parametrizations considered: soft (top) and stiff (bottom), by neglecting (dashed lines) or fully including (solid lines) in-medium effects. The spinodal boundary for pure nucleonic matter (gray) is shown for reference. The in￾sets show the total cluster fraction Xd+α as function of ρb, for three representative temperature values. ferenc… 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

68 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rep.621, 127 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    Oertel, M

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

    2017

  3. [3]

    Burgio, H.-J

    G. Burgio, H.-J. Schulze, I. Vidaña, and J.-B. Wei, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics120, 103879 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Horowitz and A

    C. Horowitz and A. Schwenk, Nucl. Phys. A776, 55 (2006)

    2006

  5. [5]

    A. R. Raduta and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C82, 065801 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Typel, G

    S. Typel, G. Röpke, T. Klähn, D. Blaschke, and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C81, 015803 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    Burrello and M

    S. Burrello and M. Grasso, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 1 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Keller, K

    J. Keller, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 072701 (2023)

    2023

  9. [9]

    A. Rios, A. Polls, and W. Dickhoff, Phys. Rev. C89, 044303 (2014)

    2014

  10. [10]

    O. Hen, G. A. Miller, E. Piasetzky, and L. B. Weinstein, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 045002 (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    Burrello and S

    S. Burrello and S. Typel, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 120 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    H. Pais, F. Gulminelli, C. Providência, and G. Röpke, Phys. Rev. C99, 055806 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    Phase-space excluded-volume approach for light clusters in nuclear medium,

    R. Wang, Z. Zhang, S. Burrello, M. Colonna, and E. G. Lanza, “Phase-space excluded-volume approach for light clusters in nuclear medium,” (2025), arXiv:2506.16437 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Burrello, F

    S. Burrello, F. Gulminelli, F. Aymard, M. Colonna, and A. R. Raduta, Phys. Rev. C92, 055804 (2015)

    2015

  15. [15]

    Wu, S.-B

    X.-H. Wu, S.-B. Wang, A. Sedrakian, and G. Röpke, J. Low Temp. Phys.189, 133 (2017)

    2017

  16. [16]

    Röpke, Phys

    G. Röpke, Phys. Rev. C79, 014002 (2009)

    2009

  17. [17]

    Röpke, Nucl

    G. Röpke, Nucl. Phys. A867, 66 (2011)

    2011

  18. [18]

    Baran, M

    V. Baran, M. Colonna, M. Di Toro, and A. Larionov, Nucl. Phys. A632, 287 (1998)

    1998

  19. [19]

    Chomaz, M

    P. Chomaz, M. Colonna, and J. Randrup, Phys. Rept. 389, 263 (2004)

    2004

  20. [20]

    Baran, M

    V. Baran, M. Colonna, V. Greco, and M. Di Toro, Phys. Rep.410, 335 (2005)

    2005

  21. [21]

    Kanada-En’yo, M

    Y. Kanada-En’yo, M. Kimura, and A. Ono, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2012, 01A202 (2012), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article- pdf/2012/1/01A202/11578300/pts001.pdf

    2012

  22. [22]

    Ono, Prog

    A. Ono, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.105, 139 (2019)

    2019

  23. [23]

    Röpke, Phys

    G. Röpke, Phys. Rev. C101, 064310 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    N. Alam, H. Pais, C. Providência, and B. K. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. C95, 055808 (2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    Boukari, H

    O. Boukari, H. Pais, S. Antić, and C. Providência, Phys. Rev. C103, 055804 (2021), arXiv:2007.08852 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Wolteret al

    H. Wolteret al. (Tmep), Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.125, 103962 (2022)

    2022

  27. [27]

    Xu, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics106, 312 (2019)

    J. Xu, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics106, 312 (2019)

    2019

  28. [28]

    Napolitani and M

    P. Napolitani and M. Colonna, Phys. Lett. B726, 382 (2013)

    2013

  29. [29]

    Lin and P

    H. Lin and P. Danielewicz, Phys. Rev. C99, 024612 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    Danielewicz and G

    P. Danielewicz and G. F. Bertsch, Nucl. Phys. A533, 712 (1991)

    1991

  31. [31]

    Wang, Y.-G

    R. Wang, Y.-G. Ma, L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, K.-J. Sun, and Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C108, L031601 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    Cheng and Z.-Q

    H.-G. Cheng and Z.-Q. Feng, Phys. Rev. C109, L021602 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    H. Pais, S. Chiacchiera, and C. Providência, Phys. Rev. C91, 055801 (2015), arXiv:1504.03964 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  34. [34]

    Li, L.-W

    B.-A. Li, L.-W. Chen, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rep.464, 113 (2008)

    2008

  35. [35]

    Colonna, Prog

    M. Colonna, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.113, 103775 (2020)

    2020

  36. [36]

    Sorensen, , et al., Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics134, 104080 (2024), arXiv:2301.13253 [nucl-th]

    A. Sorensen, , et al., Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics134, 104080 (2024), arXiv:2301.13253 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    C. Y. Tsang, M. B. Tsang, W. G. Lynch, R. Ku- mar, and C. J. Horowitz, Nat. Astron.8, 328 (2024), 23 arXiv:2310.11588 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Frosin, S

    C. Frosin, S. Piantelli, G. Casini, A. Ono, A. Cama- iani, L. Baldesi, S. Barlini, B. Borderie, R. Bougault, C. Ciampi, M. Cicerchia, A. Chbihi, D. Dell’Aquila, J. A. Dueñas, D. Fabris, Q. Fable, J. D. Frankland, T. Gé- nard, F. Gramegna, D. Gruyer, M. Henri, B. Hong, M. J. Kweon, S. Kim, A. Kordyasz, T. Kozik, I. Lom- bardo, O. Lopez, T. Marchi, K. Mazur...

    2023

  39. [39]

    Fable, L

    Q. Fable, L. Baldesi, S. Barlini, E. Bonnet, B. Bor- derie, R. Bougault, A. Camaiani, G. Casini, A. Chbihi, C. Ciampi, J. A. Dueñas, J. D. Frankland, T. Génard, D. Gruyer, M. Henri, B. Hong, S. Kim, A. J. Kordyasz, T. Kozik, A. Le Fèvre, N. Le Neindre, I. Lombardo, O. Lopez, T. Marchi, P. Marini, S. H. Nam, A. Ono, J. Park, M. Pârlog, S. Piantelli, A. Reb...

    2024

  40. [40]

    Sumiyoshi and G

    K. Sumiyoshi and G. Röpke, Phys. Rev. C77, 055804 (2008)

    2008

  41. [41]

    Arcones, G

    A. Arcones, G. Martínez-Pinedo, E. O’Connor, A. Schwenk, H.-T. Janka, C. J. Horowitz, and K. Langanke, Phys. Rev. C78, 015806 (2008)

    2008

  42. [42]

    Burrello, M

    S. Burrello, M. Colonna, and F. Matera, Phys. Rev. C 94, 012801 (2016)

    2016

  43. [43]

    A. V. Yudin, M. Hempel, S. I. Blinnikov, D. K. Nadyozhin, and I. V. Panov, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society483, 5426 (2018), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/483/4/5426/27495002/sty3468.pdf

    2018

  44. [44]

    Fischer, S

    T. Fischer, S. Typel, G. Röpke, N.-U. F. Bastian, and G. Martínez-Pinedo, Phys. Rev. C102, 055807 (2020)

    2020

  45. [45]

    J., Dinh Thi, H., Fantina, A

    Davis, P. J., Dinh Thi, H., Fantina, A. F., Gulminelli, F., Oertel, M., and Suleiman, L., A&a687, A44 (2024), arXiv:2406.14906 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    H. H.-Y. Ng, P. C.-K. Cheong, A. T.-L. Lam, and T. G. F. Li, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Se- ries272, 9 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    and Beznogov, Mikhail V., A&A 701, A143 (2025)

    Raduta, Adriana R. and Beznogov, Mikhail V., A&A 701, A143 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    Burrello, F

    S. Burrello, F. Gulminelli, M. Antonelli, M. Colonna, and A. F. Fantina, Phys. Rev. C112, 035802 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    Röpke, Phys

    G. Röpke, Phys. Rev. C92, 054001 (2015)

    2015

  50. [50]

    R. Wang, S. Burrello, M. Colonna, and F. Matera, Phys. Rev. C110, L031601 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    X. G. Deng, Y. G. Ma, and M. Veselský, Phys. Rev. C 94, 044622 (2016)

    2016

  52. [52]

    E. R. Most, A. Motornenko, J. Steinheimer, V. Dex- heimer, M. Hanauske, L. Rezzolla, and H. Stoecker, Phys. Rev. D107, 043034 (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

    Colonna and F

    M. Colonna and F. Matera, Phys. Rev. C77, 064606 (2008)

    2008

  54. [54]

    Burrello, M

    S. Burrello, M. Colonna, G. Colò, D. Lacroix, X. Roca- Maza, G. Scamps, and H. Zheng, Phys. Rev. C99, 054314 (2019)

    2019

  55. [55]

    Shvedov, S

    L. Shvedov, S. Burrello, M. Colonna, and H. Zheng, Phys. Rev. C111, 014609 (2025)

    2025

  56. [56]

    Zheng, S

    H. Zheng, S. Burrello, M. Colonna, and V. Baran, Phys. Lett. B769, 424 (2017)

    2017

  57. [57]

    Baran, M

    V. Baran, M. Colonna, M. Di Toro, and V. Greco, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 4492 (2001)

    2001

  58. [58]

    Burrello, M

    S. Burrello, M. Colonna, and F. Matera, Phys. Rev. C 89, 057604 (2014)

    2014

  59. [59]

    Paiset al., Phys

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

    2020

  60. [60]

    Qinet al., Phys

    L. Qinet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 172701 (2012)

    2012

  61. [61]

    Kuhrts, M

    C. Kuhrts, M. Beyer, P. Danielewicz, and G. Röpke, Phys. Rev. C63, 034605 (2001)

    2001

  62. [62]

    G.Röpke, D.Voskresensky, I.Kryukov, andD.Blaschke, Nucl. Phys. A970, 224 (2018)

    2018

  63. [63]

    Voskresensky, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics130, 104030 (2023)

    D. Voskresensky, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics130, 104030 (2023)

    2023

  64. [64]

    Ducoin, P

    C. Ducoin, P. Chomaz, and F. Gulminelli, Nucl. Phys. A789, 403 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0612044 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  65. [65]

    Borderie and J

    B. Borderie and J. Frankland, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics105, 82 (2019)

    2019

  66. [66]

    Nieto Gallego, Master’s thesis, University of Catania, Catania, Italy (2025)

    P. Nieto Gallego, Master’s thesis, University of Catania, Catania, Italy (2025)

    2025

  67. [67]

    Bougault et al., J

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

    2020

  68. [68]

    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