pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21039 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Recognition: unknown

Conformal prediction for uncertainties in the neutron star equation of state

Alexandros Gezerlis, Cassandra L. Armstrong, Habib Yousefi Dezdarani, Ryan Curry

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 22:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords conformal predictionneutron star equation of stateuncertainty quantificationBayesian inferencequantum Monte Carlomass-radius relations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Conformal prediction applied to Bayesian posterior samples yields reliable uncertainty bands for neutron star equations of state without assuming any error distribution.

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

The paper shows that conformal prediction can be used to add guaranteed uncertainty intervals to existing calculations of the neutron star equation of state. It takes posterior samples already produced by Bayesian inference or quantum Monte Carlo methods and applies Conformalized Quantile Regression as a post-processing step to build bands that cover the true values at a chosen rate. A reader would care because neutron star mass, radius, and other properties depend on this equation of state, and standard uncertainty estimates often rest on untested assumptions about how the errors are distributed. The authors test the approach on mass-radius data from the NMMA collaboration and on calculations of pure neutron matter, with empirical checks confirming the bands behave as expected.

Core claim

The central claim is that Conformalized Quantile Regression can be applied directly to posterior samples from Bayesian inference and to quantum Monte Carlo results for pure neutron matter, producing uncertainty bands for neutron star mass-radius relations that achieve valid coverage without requiring any assumption on the form of the underlying distribution, as verified through empirical coverage studies.

What carries the argument

Conformalized Quantile Regression (CQR) used as post-processing on posterior samples to adjust quantile-based intervals via conformity scores.

If this is right

  • Existing Bayesian analyses of neutron star data can receive guaranteed uncertainty bands without rerunning the original inference.
  • The same post-processing applies to theoretical quantum Monte Carlo calculations of neutron matter.
  • Empirical coverage remains reliable when the method is tested on both observational mass-radius posteriors and pure neutron matter results.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The technique could be tried on other nuclear physics outputs that already exist as sample sets, such as simulations of dense matter.
  • It might allow direct comparison of uncertainty bands across different equation-of-state models without forcing them into a common distributional form.
  • New observations of neutron stars could be incorporated by recalibrating the conformal scores on the updated posterior samples.

Load-bearing premise

The input posterior samples from Bayesian inference or quantum Monte Carlo calculations are representative of the actual variability in the equation of state.

What would settle it

A collection of new neutron star mass and radius measurements where the constructed CQR bands cover the observed values at a rate clearly below the nominal target, such as 70 percent coverage when 90 percent is expected.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21039 by Alexandros Gezerlis, Cassandra L. Armstrong, Habib Yousefi Dezdarani, Ryan Curry.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Prior distribution of polytropic EOS curves show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Posterior distribution of polytropic EOS curves as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Posterior distribution of polytropic EOS curves and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Uncertainty bands for mass-radius relations com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Empirical coverage of CQR prediction intervals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Empirical coverage distribution of the CQR predic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The 90% CQR bands for the mass-radius relation of NSs. The black curves represent individual EOS samples provided [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Distribution of NS radii at 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Q-Q plots of the radius samples at a fixed mass of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Empirical coverage of CQR prediction intervals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Distribution of the neutron matter energy at density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. A comparison between CQR prediction intervals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Empirical coverage of CQR prediction intervals for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study uncertainties in the equation of state of neutron stars using conformal prediction as a distribution-free and model-agnostic method that provides coverage guarantees. In particular, we apply the Conformalized Quantile Regression (CQR) method to posterior samples calculated from Bayesian inference, creating reliable uncertainty bands without assuming a specific form of the underlying distribution. We first construct CQR bands as a postprocessing step to the posterior samples of neutron star mas-radius relations provided by the NMMA collaboration and to Quantum Monte Carlo calculations of pure neutron matter. In all cases, empirical coverage studies confirm the robustness of the method.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the Conformalized Quantile Regression (CQR) method as a post-processing step to posterior samples obtained from Bayesian inference (NMMA collaboration mass-radius relations) and Quantum Monte Carlo calculations of pure neutron matter. It claims that this yields reliable, distribution-free uncertainty bands for the neutron star equation of state with coverage guarantees, supported by empirical coverage studies that confirm robustness without assuming a specific form for the underlying distribution.

Significance. If the coverage properties hold under the stated conditions, the approach supplies a model-agnostic tool for uncertainty quantification that could be useful in nuclear astrophysics, where posterior distributions from Bayesian EOS inference are often complex and non-Gaussian. The explicit mention of empirical coverage checks is a constructive element that helps ground the claims.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of 'coverage guarantees' and 'reliable uncertainty bands' rests on the standard CQR exchangeability assumption between calibration and test points. The input samples are MCMC-derived posteriors from NMMA Bayesian inference, which are serially dependent due to chain autocorrelation; the manuscript does not describe thinning, effective sample size checks, or any adjustment for dependence, so the finite-sample guarantee does not automatically transfer and empirical coverage alone does not restore it.
minor comments (1)
  1. Clarify the exact preprocessing steps applied to the posterior samples before CQR (e.g., any subsampling, ordering, or feature construction) and state whether the same procedure is used for both NMMA and QMC inputs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and for identifying this important technical point concerning the exchangeability assumption. We address it directly below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of 'coverage guarantees' and 'reliable uncertainty bands' rests on the standard CQR exchangeability assumption between calibration and test points. The input samples are MCMC-derived posteriors from NMMA Bayesian inference, which are serially dependent due to chain autocorrelation; the manuscript does not describe thinning, effective sample size checks, or any adjustment for dependence, so the finite-sample guarantee does not automatically transfer and empirical coverage alone does not restore it.

    Authors: We agree that the finite-sample coverage guarantee of CQR requires exchangeability between the calibration and test sets, and that raw MCMC posterior samples generally exhibit serial dependence due to autocorrelation. The manuscript applies CQR as a post-processing step to the NMMA-provided samples without explicitly discussing thinning or effective sample size. Although the reported empirical coverage studies indicate reliable performance in practice, we acknowledge that these studies alone do not restore the theoretical guarantee under dependence. In the revised version we will (i) add a dedicated paragraph in the methods section discussing the exchangeability assumption and its implications for MCMC inputs, (ii) report effective sample sizes for the chains used (or note that the supplied NMMA samples are already thinned), and (iii) qualify the abstract and main text to state that the coverage guarantees hold under approximate exchangeability after standard MCMC diagnostics and thinning. These changes will make the scope of the claims precise while preserving the practical utility demonstrated by the empirical results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: CQR applied as post-processing to external posterior samples

full rationale

The paper applies the standard Conformalized Quantile Regression (CQR) technique as an explicit post-processing step to pre-existing posterior samples from the NMMA collaboration and independent Quantum Monte Carlo calculations of neutron matter. No parameters are fitted inside the paper and then relabeled as predictions; the central output consists of uncertainty bands whose coverage is checked empirically on the supplied external data. There are no self-citations that bear the load of the main claim, no self-definitional loops, and no renaming of known results. The derivation chain is therefore the direct application of a known distribution-free method to independent inputs and remains self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable from the abstract alone; the work relies on standard assumptions of conformal prediction and Bayesian inference.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5403 in / 973 out tokens · 41136 ms · 2026-05-09T22:27:32.803835+00:00 · methodology

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

72 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    can also be used to calculate CQR intervals. 3 III. APPLICA TIONS In this section, we demonstrate the application of CQR for uncertainty quantification across three different sce- narios. We begin with a toy model setup to construct and validate CQR prediction bands using the TOV equa- tions. Following this, we apply the method to two real- istic datasets...

    2000

  2. [2]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, ApJ550, 426 (2001). [2] J. M. Lattimer, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci62, 485 (2012). 11

    2001

  3. [3]

    ¨Ozel and P

    F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.54, 401 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Hebeler, J

    K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, ApJ773, 11 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    A. L. Watts, N. Andersson, D. Chakrabarty, M. Fe- roci, K. Hebeler, G. Israel, F. K. Lamb, M. C. Miller, S. Morsink, F. ¨Ozel, A. Patruno, J. Poutanen, D. Psaltis, A. Schwenk, A. W. Steiner, L. Stella, L. Tolos, and M. van der Klis, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 021001 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    B. R. Barrett, P. Navr´ atil, and J. P. Vary, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.69, 131 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    Carbone, A

    A. Carbone, A. Cipollone, C. Barbieri, A. Rios, and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. C88, 054326 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. W. Holt, and C. Wellenhofer, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci71, 403 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    Hergert, S

    H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, T. D. Morris, A. Schwenk, and K. Tsukiyama, Phys. Rep.621, 165 (2016)

    2016

  10. [10]

    J. E. Lynn, I. Tews, S. Gandolfi, and A. Lovato, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci69, 279 (2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1773 (2009)

    2009

  12. [12]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Phys. Rep.503, 1 (2011)

    2011

  13. [13]

    Gezerlis, I

    A. Gezerlis, I. Tews, E. Epelbaum, S. Gandolfi, K. Hebeler, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 032501 (2013)

    2013

  14. [14]

    Gezerlis, I

    A. Gezerlis, I. Tews, E. Epelbaum, M. Freunek, S. Gan- dolfi, K. Hebeler, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C90, 054323 (2014)

    2014

  15. [15]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A51, 53 (2015)

    2015

  16. [16]

    Hammer, S

    H.-W. Hammer, S. K¨ onig, and U. van Kolck, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 025004 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    S. K. Greif, G. Raaijmakers, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, and A. L. Watts, Mon Not R Astron Soc485, 5363 (2019)

    2019

  18. [19]

    Jiang, S.-P

    J.-L. Jiang, S.-P. Tang, Y.-Z. Wang, Y.-Z. Fan, and D.- M. Wei, ApJ892, 55 (2020)

    2020

  19. [20]

    Al-Mamun, A

    M. Al-Mamun, A. W. Steiner, J. N¨ attil¨ a, J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, I. Tews, S. Gandolfi, C. Heinke, and S. Han, Phys. Rev. Lett126, 061101 (2021)

    2021

  20. [21]

    Raaijmakers, S

    G. Raaijmakers, S. K. Greif, K. Hebeler, T. Hinderer, S. Nissanke, A. Schwenk, T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, J. M. Lattimer, and W. C. G. Ho, ApJ918, L29 (2021)

    2021

  21. [22]

    Tang, J.-L

    S.-P. Tang, J.-L. Jiang, M.-Z. Han, Y.-Z. Fan, and D.-M. Wei, Phys. Rev. D104, 063032 (2021)

    2021

  22. [23]

    Jiang, C

    J.-L. Jiang, C. Ecker, and L. Rezzolla, ApJ949, 11 (2023)

    2023

  23. [24]

    Lim and J

    Y. Lim and J. W. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 062701 (2018)

    2018

  24. [25]

    Canizares, S

    P. Canizares, S. E. Field, J. Gair, V. Raymond, R. Smith, and M. Tiglio, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 071104 (2015)

    2015

  25. [26]

    Bonilla, P

    E. Bonilla, P. Giuliani, K. Godbey, and D. Lee, Phys. Rev. C106, 054322 (2022)

    2022

  26. [27]

    Liodis, E

    I. Liodis, E. Smyrniotis, and N. Stergioulas, Phys. Rev. D109, 104008 (2024)

    2024

  27. [28]

    B. T. Reed, R. Somasundaram, S. De, C. L. Armstrong, P. Giuliani, C. Capano, D. A. Brown, and I. Tews, ApJ 974, 285 (2024)

    2024

  28. [29]

    C. L. Armstrong, P. Giuliani, K. Godbey, R. Soma- sundaram, and I. Tews, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 142501 (2025)

    2025

  29. [30]

    M. C. Miller,et al, ApJL887, L24 (2019), arXiv:1912.05705 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  30. [31]

    Dietrich, M

    T. Dietrich, M. W. Coughlin, P. T. H. Pang, M. Bulla, J. Heinzel, L. Issa, I. Tews, and S. Antier, Science370, 1450 (2020)

    2020

  31. [32]

    Constraining Hamilto- nians from chiral effective field theory with neutron-star data,

    C. L. Armstrong, B. T. Reed, T. Plohr, H. Rose, S. De, R. Somasundaram, and I. Tews, “Constraining Hamilto- nians from chiral effective field theory with neutron-star data,” (2026), arXiv:2601.05999 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2026

  32. [33]

    Somasundaram, I

    R. Somasundaram, I. Svensson, S. De, A. E. Deneris, Y. Dietz, P. Landry, A. Schwenk, and I. Tews, Nat Com- mun16, 9819 (2025)

    2025

  33. [34]

    Dobaczewski, W

    J. Dobaczewski, W. Nazarewicz, and P.-G. Reinhard, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.41, 074001 (2014)

    2014

  34. [35]

    D. G. Ireland and W. Nazarewicz, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.42, 030301 (2015)

    2015

  35. [36]

    B. D. Carlsson, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, D. F. Str¨ omberg, G. R. Jansen, O. Lilja, M. Lindby, B. A. Mattsson, and K. A. Wendt, Phys. Rev. X6, 011019 (2016)

    2016

  36. [37]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. A. Melendez, R. J. Furnstahl, and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. C102, 054315 (2020)

    2020

  37. [38]

    Duguet, A

    T. Duguet, A. Ekstr¨ om, R. J. Furnstahl, S. K¨ onig, and D. Lee, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 031002 (2024)

    2024

  38. [39]

    M. R. Schindler and D. R. Phillips, Ann. Phys.324, 682 (2009)

    2009

  39. [40]

    R. J. Furnstahl, D. R. Phillips, and S. Wesolowski, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.42, 034028 (2015)

    2015

  40. [41]

    Wesolowski, R

    S. Wesolowski, R. J. Furnstahl, J. A. Melendez, and D. R. Phillips, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.46, 045102 (2019)

    2019

  41. [42]

    R. J. Furnstahl, N. Klco, D. R. Phillips, and S. Wesolowski, Phys. Rev. C92, 024005 (2015)

    2015

  42. [43]

    J. A. Melendez, S. Wesolowski, and R. J. Furnstahl, Phys. Rev. C96, 024003 (2017)

    2017

  43. [44]

    Drischler, R

    C. Drischler, R. Furnstahl, J. Melendez, and D. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 202702 (2020)

    2020

  44. [45]

    A. C. Semposki, C. Drischler, R. J. Furnstahl, J. A. Me- lendez, and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. C111, 035804 (2025)

    2025

  45. [46]

    Neu- tron star crust and outer core equation of state from chi- ral effective field theory with quantified uncertainties,

    H. G¨ ottling, L. Hoff, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, “Neu- tron star crust and outer core equation of state from chi- ral effective field theory with quantified uncertainties,” (2025), arXiv:2512.19593 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  46. [47]

    H. Y. Dezdarani, R. Curry, and A. Gezerlis, Phys. Rev. C113, 014004 (2026)

    2026

  47. [48]

    V. Vovk, A. Gammerman, and G. Shafer,Algorith- mic Learning in a Random World(Springer, New York, 2005)

    2005

  48. [49]

    Shafer and V

    G. Shafer and V. Vovk, J. Mach. Learn. Res.9, 371 (2008)

    2008

  49. [50]

    R. F. Barber, E. J. Cand` es, A. Ramdas, and R. J. Tib- shirani, Ann. Stat.51, 816 (2023)

    2023

  50. [51]

    Bates, E

    S. Bates, E. Cand` es, L. Lei, Y. Romano, and M. Sesia, Ann. Stat.51, 149 (2023)

    2023

  51. [52]

    Lei and L

    J. Lei and L. Wasserman, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Method.76, 71 (2014)

    2014

  52. [53]

    A. N. Angelopoulos and S. Bates, Found. Trends Mach. Learn.16, 494 (2023)

    2023

  53. [54]

    Cand` es, L

    E. Cand` es, L. Lei, and Z. Ren, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Method.85, 24 (2023)

    2023

  54. [55]

    Cauchois, S

    M. Cauchois, S. Gupta, A. Ali, and J. C. and Duchi, J. Am. Stat. Assoc.119, 3033 (2024)

    2024

  55. [56]

    Chernozhukov, K

    V. Chernozhukov, K. W¨ uthrich, and Y. Zhu, inProceed- ings of the 31st Conference On Learning Theory(PMLR, 12

  56. [57]

    Gibbs and E

    I. Gibbs and E. Candes, inAdvances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, Vol. 34 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2021) pp. 1660–1672

    2021

  57. [58]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11824 , year=

    A. N. Angelopoulos, R. F. Barber, and S. Bates, “The- oretical Foundations of Conformal Prediction,” (2025), arXiv:2411.11824 [math]

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [59]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03609 , year=

    M. Klein, L. Bethune, E. Ndiaye, and M. Cuturi, “Multi- variate Conformal Prediction using Optimal Transport,” (2025), arXiv:2502.03609 [stat]

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [60]

    Ashton, N

    G. Ashton, N. Colombo, I. Harry, and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. D109, 123027 (2024)

    2024

  60. [61]

    Certified Uncertainty for Surrogate Models of Neutron Star Equations of State via Mondrian Conformal Prediction,

    M. M. S. Mendes, R. D. Pereira, M. D. d. R. Louren, and C. H. Lenzi, “Certified Uncertainty for Surrogate Models of Neutron Star Equations of State via Mondrian Conformal Prediction,” (2026), arXiv:2602.19363 [astro- ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  61. [62]

    Singer, J

    N. Singer, J. P. Williams, and S. Ghosh, MNRAS539, 1372 (2025)

    2025

  62. [63]

    Gaussian process interpola- tion with conformal prediction: methods and compara- tive analysis,

    A. Pion and E. Vazquez, “Gaussian process interpola- tion with conformal prediction: methods and compara- tive analysis,” (2024), arXiv:2407.08271

    work page arXiv 2024

  63. [64]

    MAPIE - Model Agnostic Prediction Interval Estima- tor,

    “MAPIE - Model Agnostic Prediction Interval Estima- tor,”

  64. [65]

    Numerical Methods in Physics with Python,

    Alex Gezerlis, “Numerical Methods in Physics with Python,” (2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  65. [66]

    J. S. Read, B. D. Lackey, B. J. Owen, and J. L. Friedman, Phys. Rev. D79, 124032 (2009)

    2009

  66. [67]

    Casares, J

    J. Casares, J. I. G. Hern´ andez, G. Israelian, and R. Re- bolo, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc401, 2517 (2010)

    2010

  67. [68]

    Mu˜ noz-Darias, J

    T. Mu˜ noz-Darias, J. Casares, and I. G. Mart´ ınez-Pais, ApJ635, 502 (2005)

    2005

  68. [69]

    A. B. Mason, J. S. Clark, A. J. Norton, P. A. Crowther, T. M. Tauris, N. Langer, I. Negueruela, and P. Roche, Mon Not R Astron Soc422, 199 (2012)

    2012

  69. [70]

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

    2017

  70. [71]

    B. P. Abbott,et al, ApJL848, L12 (2017)

    2017

  71. [72]

    B. P. Abbott,et al, ApJL848, L13 (2017), arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  72. [73]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schi- avilla, K. Schmidt, and R. Wiringa, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1067 (2015)

    2015