pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.08584 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc· nucl-th

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Non-Parametric Equation of State Reveals Non-Conformal Behavior Beyond Neutron Star Densities

Shao-Peng Tang, Yi-Zhong Fan, Yong-Jia Huang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 01:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qcnucl-th
keywords neutron starsequation of statequark matterphase transitionperturbative QCDtrace anomalysound speed
0
0 comments X

The pith

Non-parametric equation of state construction reveals early stiffening followed by softening in massive neutron stars.

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

The paper builds a statistical equation of state that runs continuously from the nuclear crust up to the perturbative QCD regime without assuming a specific functional form. Observational needs to support two-solar-mass stars while keeping low-mass radii small force an initial rise in stiffness, but this rise must be offset by a long interval of softening so that the model stays below perturbative QCD energy-density limits at very high densities. The resulting posterior shows a pronounced peak in the squared sound speed inside the heaviest neutron stars, after which the sound speed falls and only reaches the conformal value of one-third near thirty times nuclear saturation density. The trace anomaly therefore becomes positive beyond ordinary neutron-star densities and approaches its perturbative QCD limit from above. This pattern supplies evidence that the cores of the most massive stars contain a hadron-quark mixed phase whose non-perturbative quark matter is intrinsically soft rather than stiff.

Core claim

By constructing a non-parametric statistical equation of state that continuously connects the nuclear crust to the asymptotic-freedom regime, the authors show that the global thermodynamic constraints required by two-solar-mass neutron stars with relatively small low-mass radii produce a clear peak in squared sound speed inside massive stars. To remain consistent with perturbative QCD energy-density bounds, this early stiffening must be followed by an extended range of softening, so that the squared sound speed approaches one-third only at approximately thirty times nuclear saturation density. The trace anomaly, defined as one-third minus pressure over energy density, turns positive beyond 2

What carries the argument

non-parametric statistical construction of the equation of state that enforces global thermodynamic constraints from neutron-star observations and perturbative QCD bounds across the full density range

If this is right

  • Massive neutron stars develop cores containing a hadron-quark mixed phase.
  • The non-perturbative quark matter in those cores is soft, producing non-conformal behavior.
  • Squared sound speed reaches a maximum inside the star and then decreases before approaching one-third at roughly thirty times nuclear saturation density.
  • Trace anomaly becomes positive at densities above those found in neutron stars and approaches the perturbative QCD limit from above.
  • This scenario differs fundamentally from stiff quark-star models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future gravitational-wave signals from neutron-star mergers could test the predicted location and depth of the softening region.
  • The same non-parametric method could be applied to hybrid stars or strange-matter candidates to map possible phase boundaries.
  • A positive trace anomaly at moderate densities might produce observable signatures in neutron-star cooling curves or oscillation modes.
  • Confirmation would tighten the distinction between mixed-phase quark matter and purely hadronic or purely strange-matter equations of state.

Load-bearing premise

The requirement that the equation of state must stiffen early to support two-solar-mass neutron stars with small radii at lower masses while remaining below perturbative QCD energy-density limits at high density.

What would settle it

A precise radius measurement for a neutron star above two solar masses that is too large to be produced by any model containing the required high-density softening interval.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08584 by Shao-Peng Tang, Yi-Zhong Fan, Yong-Jia Huang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the EOS construction in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The cumulative softening parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Joint posterior distribution (68% and 95% contours) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Posterior samples in the mass–radius plane, with color indi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The prior EOSs continuously constructed from nulcear crust [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Posterior distribution for EOS parameters and NS properties. 68.3% confidence interval is shown for each subplot. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Similar as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose a non-parametric approach to construct the statistical equation of state (EOS) continuously from the nuclear crust to the asymptotic-freedom regime. Driven by the observationally required stiffening to support two-solar-mass neutron stars (NSs) with relatively small radii for low-mass NSs, this global thermodynamic constraint suggests a clear peak of squared sound speed ($c_s^2$) in massive NSs. To prevent overshooting perturbative QCD (pQCD) energy-density bounds, this early stiffening must be actively compensated by an extended density range of softening, with $c_s^2$ not approaching $1/3$ until $\sim\!30\,n_{\rm sat}$. Consistently, the trace anomaly $\Delta \equiv 1/3 - p/\epsilon$ becomes positive beyond NS densities and approaches the pQCD limit from above. This natural emergence of $\Delta > 0$ organically aligns with some anticipated microphysics, likely arising from the pressure dilution in a quark-hadron mixed phase, non-conformal pQCD corrections to quark-gluon interactions, or the symmetry-breaking effects of finite strange quark mass. By measuring the degree of this non-monotonic behavior in the posterior, we find evidence for a hadron-quark phase transition in the cores of the most massive neutron stars. This indicates that the non-perturbative quark matter is intrinsically soft, fundamentally distinguishing it from the stiff scenarios associated with the quark-star picture.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a non-parametric statistical construction of the neutron star equation of state spanning nuclear crust densities to the perturbative QCD regime. Observational requirements for supporting 2 M_⊙ neutron stars with relatively small radii for lower-mass stars drive an early stiffening (peak in c_s²), which must be compensated by extended softening at higher densities to respect pQCD energy-density bounds; this produces a positive trace anomaly Δ beyond neutron-star densities that approaches the pQCD limit from above. The authors measure the degree of this non-monotonic behavior in the posterior and interpret it as evidence for a hadron-quark phase transition in the cores of the most massive neutron stars, implying intrinsically soft non-perturbative quark matter.

Significance. If the statistical robustness of the non-monotonicity measurement and its attribution to a phase transition can be established, the work would provide a data-driven, largely model-independent indication of high-density QCD behavior in neutron stars, distinguishing it from stiff quark-star scenarios. The non-parametric framework and explicit incorporation of both astrophysical and pQCD constraints are strengths that could be extended to future multimessenger data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / results] Abstract and results section: The central claim that 'by measuring the degree of this non-monotonic behavior in the posterior, we find evidence for a hadron-quark phase transition' is not supported by a quantitative model comparison (e.g., Bayes factor or posterior odds) among the three mechanisms listed in the abstract (pressure dilution in a mixed phase, non-conformal pQCD corrections, or finite strange-quark-mass effects). The global stiffening-plus-pQCD-bound constraint forces softening by construction, so the specific attribution to a first-order transition requires an explicit test that is not described.
  2. [Methods] Methods section on posterior sampling: The non-parametric construction is driven by the 'observationally required stiffening' and pQCD bounds imposed as global constraints. It is unclear how the prior and data weighting are chosen such that the compensation between early stiffening and later softening does not reduce to a prior-driven feature; a sensitivity analysis to these choices (or to the precise pQCD matching density) is needed to establish that the non-monotonicity is data-driven rather than constraint-driven.
  3. [Results] Results on trace anomaly and sound-speed posterior: The statement that Δ > 0 'organically aligns with some anticipated microphysics' is presented without a direct comparison to existing parametric EOS models that include or exclude a mixed phase. If the non-parametric posterior is to be used as evidence, the manuscript should show that the observed degree of non-monotonicity is statistically inconsistent with the alternatives listed in the abstract.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract uses 'likely arising from' for the three microphysical mechanisms but then asserts 'evidence for a hadron-quark phase transition' without clarifying the logical step; a brief sentence distinguishing 'consistent with' from 'evidence for' would improve clarity.
  2. [Introduction / methods] Notation for the trace anomaly Δ ≡ 1/3 − p/ε should be defined at first use and kept consistent with standard QCD literature (where the sign convention for Δ is sometimes reversed).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which identify key areas where additional statistical tests and comparisons can strengthen the interpretation of our non-parametric EOS results. We respond to each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / results] The central claim that 'by measuring the degree of this non-monotonic behavior in the posterior, we find evidence for a hadron-quark phase transition' is not supported by a quantitative model comparison (e.g., Bayes factor or posterior odds) among the three mechanisms listed in the abstract. The global stiffening-plus-pQCD-bound constraint forces softening by construction, so the specific attribution to a first-order transition requires an explicit test that is not described.

    Authors: We agree that a direct quantitative model comparison would provide stronger support for attributing the observed non-monotonicity specifically to a hadron-quark phase transition. Our non-parametric construction measures the posterior probability of non-monotonic c_s² and positive Δ without assuming a particular microphysical model, but the claim in the abstract would benefit from explicit qualification. In the revised manuscript we will soften the language in the abstract and results to state that the non-monotonic behavior is consistent with a hadron-quark phase transition (via pressure dilution in a mixed phase) while also being compatible with the other listed mechanisms. We will add a new subsection that performs a limited model comparison by contrasting the posterior against representative parametric EOS families that do or do not include a first-order transition. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods section on posterior sampling: The non-parametric construction is driven by the 'observationally required stiffening' and pQCD bounds imposed as global constraints. It is unclear how the prior and data weighting are chosen such that the compensation between early stiffening and later softening does not reduce to a prior-driven feature; a sensitivity analysis to these choices (or to the precise pQCD matching density) is needed to establish that the non-monotonicity is data-driven rather than constraint-driven.

    Authors: We will add a dedicated sensitivity analysis subsection to the methods. This will systematically vary (i) the hyperparameters of the non-parametric prior (Gaussian-process length scale and variance), (ii) the relative likelihood weights assigned to the astrophysical datasets, and (iii) the pQCD matching density within the range 5–10 n_sat. For each variation we will recompute the posterior and report the fraction of samples exhibiting a c_s² peak followed by extended softening. The analysis will demonstrate that the non-monotonic feature remains robust and is primarily driven by the requirement to simultaneously satisfy the 2 M_⊙ mass constraint, the radius measurements for lower-mass stars, and the pQCD energy-density bound. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results on trace anomaly and sound-speed posterior: The statement that Δ > 0 'organically aligns with some anticipated microphysics' is presented without a direct comparison to existing parametric EOS models that include or exclude a mixed phase. If the non-parametric posterior is to be used as evidence, the manuscript should show that the observed degree of non-monotonicity is statistically inconsistent with the alternatives listed in the abstract.

    Authors: We will expand the results section with a new figure and accompanying text that directly overlays the 68 % and 90 % credible intervals of our non-parametric posterior for c_s²(ε) and Δ(ε) against a curated set of parametric EOS models (both with and without explicit mixed-phase softening). We will also compute a simple overlap metric and report the fraction of our posterior samples that lie outside the 90 % band of the no-transition parametric models. This comparison will quantify the degree to which the observed non-monotonicity is statistically inconsistent with models lacking a softening mechanism. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in the derivation chain.

full rationale

The non-parametric EOS is constructed under external observational constraints (stiffening needed for 2 M_sun NSs with small radii) and pQCD energy-density bounds, which together require an early peak in c_s^2 followed by extended softening so that c_s^2 approaches 1/3 only at ~30 n_sat. This produces Delta > 0 beyond NS densities as a direct consequence of the imposed global thermodynamic requirements. The subsequent attribution of the non-monotonicity to a hadron-quark phase transition is presented as an interpretive alignment with anticipated microphysics rather than a mathematical reduction of the posterior to the input constraints by definition or by renaming a fitted quantity. No self-definitional equations, fitted parameters relabeled as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or smuggled ansatzes are exhibited in the abstract or described method. The central result remains an output of the statistical posterior under stated external bounds and is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is inferred from stated constraints. The non-parametric framing implies fewer explicit free parameters than traditional parametric EOS models, but global thermodynamic constraints still function as effective priors.

free parameters (1)
  • onset and extent of softening region
    The density range over which softening compensates early stiffening is determined statistically but is not independently fixed by first principles.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Perturbative QCD provides strict upper bounds on energy density at asymptotically high densities
    Invoked to require that early stiffening must be compensated by later softening.
  • domain assumption Mass-radius observations require sufficient stiffening to support 2 M_sun stars while keeping low-mass radii small
    This global constraint drives the entire non-monotonic behavior.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5577 in / 1430 out tokens · 70490 ms · 2026-05-12T01:06:52.816032+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    GP representation Following the non-parametric strategy introduced in many works [13, 15, 22, 24, 68], we model the EOS through the auxiliary variable ϕ(n)≡ −ln 1 c2s(n) −1 ! =logit[c 2 s(n)],(A1) which maps the causal rangec 2 s ∈(0,1) ontoϕ∈(−∞,+∞), making it a natural target for GP modeling. The inverse rela- tion recovers thec 2 s via the sigmoid func...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Three-domain composite construction The full EOS consists of three structurally independent but sequentially continuous segments: theHadronicsegment, the pQCDsegment, and the action-optimized segment. a. Hadronic Segment Below∼0.3n sat, the EOS is imported from the BPS crust table[37]. From 0.3n sat onwards, we construct a single GP realization covering t...

    work page

  3. [3]

    How constraints shape the structure ofc 2 s The inclusion of high-density pQCD limits imposes strin- gent restrictions on the EOS. While it is mathematically straightforward to construct arbitrary continuous paths inP–n space that connect the pressure betweenhadronicandpQCD segment, these paths can lead to vastly different accumulated energy densitiesϵ. T...

    work page

  4. [4]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Vinciguerra et al., Astrophys

    S. Vinciguerraet al., Astrophys. J.961, 62 (2024), arXiv:2308.09469 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Salmi et al., Astrophys

    T. Salmiet al., Astrophys. J.974, 294 (2024), arXiv:2406.14466 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    A. J. Dittmannet al., Astrophys. J.974, 295 (2024), arXiv:2406.14467 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Choudhury et al., Astrophys

    D. Choudhuryet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L20 (2024), arXiv:2407.06789 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Mauviard et al

    L. Mauviardet al., Astrophys. J.995, 60 (2025), arXiv:2506.14883 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. Nättilä, and A. Vuorinen, Nature Phys.16, 907 (2020), arXiv:1903.09121 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Bauswein, A

    A. Bauswein, A. Nikolaidis, G. Lioutas, H. Kochankovski, P. Char, C. Mondal, M. Oertel, L. Tolos, N. Chamel, and S. Goriely, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013253 (2026), arXiv:2507.10372 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    J. S. Read, B. D. Lackey, B. J. Owen, and J. L. Friedman, Phys. Rev. D79, 124032 (2009), arXiv:0812.2163 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  14. [14]

    Lindblom and N

    L. Lindblom and N. M. Indik, Phys. Rev. D89, 064003 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 93, 129903 (2016)], arXiv:1310.0803 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, E. Katerini, A. Kurkela, J. Nättilä, V . Paschalidis, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. X12, 011058 (2022), arXiv:2105.05132 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Landry and R

    P. Landry and R. Essick, Phys. Rev. D99, 084049 (2019), arXiv:1811.12529 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y . Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, and K. Murase, Phys. Rev. D101, 054016 (2020), arXiv:1903.03400 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Landry, R

    P. Landry, R. Essick, and K. Chatziioannou, Phys. Rev. D101, 123007 (2020), arXiv:2003.04880 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Han, J.-L

    M.-Z. Han, J.-L. Jiang, S.-P. Tang, and Y .-Z. Fan, Astrophys. J. 919, 11 (2021), arXiv:2103.05408 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Drischler, K

    C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 042501 (2019), arXiv:1710.08220 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Drischler, R

    C. Drischler, R. J. Furnstahl, J. A. Melendez, and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 202702 (2020), arXiv:2004.07232 [nucl- th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Gorda, A

    T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, R. Paatelainen, S. Säppi, and A. Vuori- nen, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 162003 (2021), arXiv:2103.05658 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Komoltsev and A

    O. Komoltsev and A. Kurkela, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 202701 (2022), arXiv:2111.05350 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Gorda, O

    T. Gorda, O. Komoltsev, and A. Kurkela, Astrophys. J.950, 107 (2023), arXiv:2204.11877 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Han, Y .-J

    M.-Z. Han, Y .-J. Huang, S.-P. Tang, and Y .-Z. Fan, Sci. Bull. 68, 913 (2023), arXiv:2207.13613 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, J. Hirvonen, O. Komoltsev, A. Kurkela, J. Nättilä, and A. Vuorinen, Nature Commun.14, 8451 (2023), arXiv:2303.11356 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Tang, Y .-J

    S.-P. Tang, Y .-J. Huang, and Y .-Z. Fan, Phys. Rev. D112, 083009 (2025), arXiv:2507.10025 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Somasundaram, I

    R. Somasundaram, I. Tews, and J. Margueron, Phys. Rev. C 107, L052801 (2023), arXiv:2204.14039 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Fan, M.-Z

    Y .-Z. Fan, M.-Z. Han, J.-L. Jiang, D.-S. Shao, and S.-P. Tang, Phys. Rev. D109, 043052 (2024), arXiv:2309.12644 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Brandes, W

    L. Brandes, W. Weise, and N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D108, 094014 (2023), arXiv:2306.06218 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Komoltsev, R

    O. Komoltsev, R. Somasundaram, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. Margueron, and I. Tews, Phys. Rev. D109, 094030 (2024), arXiv:2312.14127 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Altiparmak, C

    S. Altiparmak, C. Ecker, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett. 939, L34 (2022), arXiv:2203.14974 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Jiang, C

    J.-L. Jiang, C. Ecker, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J.949, 11 (2023), arXiv:2211.00018 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Constrained Gaussian-process bridge prior for neutron-star equation-of-state inference

    T. Gorda, O. Komoltsev, A. Kurkela, and E. Sunde, Astrophys. J.1002, 40 (2026), arXiv:2512.18044 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Baym and S

    G. Baym and S. Chin, Physics Letters B62, 241 (1976)

    work page 1976

  36. [36]

    N. K. Glendenning, Phys. Rev. D46, 1274 (1992)

    work page 1992

  37. [37]

    Masuda, T

    K. Masuda, T. Hatsuda, and T. Takatsuka, Astrophys. J.764, 12 (2013), arXiv:1205.3621 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2013

  38. [38]

    McLerran and S

    L. McLerran and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 122701 (2019), arXiv:1811.12503 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    Kojo, Phys

    T. Kojo, Phys. Rev. D104, 074005 (2021), arXiv:2106.06687 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    G. Baym, C. Pethick, and P. Sutherland, Astrophys. J.170, 299 (1971)

    work page 1971

  41. [41]

    M. I. Freidlin and A. D. Wentzell,Random Perturbations of Dynamical Systems, 3rd ed., Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, V ol. 260 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012)

    work page 2012

  42. [42]

    Touchette, Phys

    H. Touchette, Phys. Rept.478, 1 (2009)

    work page 2009

  43. [43]

    C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams,Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006)

    work page 2006

  44. [44]

    Jidling, N

    C. Jidling, N. Wahlström, A. Wills, and T. B. Schön, Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)30 (2017), arXiv:1703.00787 [stat.ML]

    work page arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y . Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, L. D. McLerran, and M. Prasza- lowicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 252702 (2022), arXiv:2207.06753 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  46. [47]

    Kurkela, P

    A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. D81, 105021 (2010), arXiv:0912.1856 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2010

  47. [48]

    Gorda, R

    T. Gorda, R. Paatelainen, S. Säppi, and K. Seppänen, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 181902 (2023), arXiv:2307.08734 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  48. [49]

    Constantinou, M

    C. Constantinou, M. Guerrini, T. Zhao, S. Han, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D112, 094014 (2025), arXiv:2506.20418 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [50]

    Gao, W.-L

    B. Gao, W.-L. Yuan, M. Harada, and Y .-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 110, 045802 (2024), arXiv:2407.13990 [nucl-th]. [48]https://compose.obspm.fr

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [51]

    Shao, S.-P

    D.-S. Shao, S.-P. Tang, X. Sheng, J.-L. Jiang, Y .-Z. Wang, Z.- P. Jin, Y .-Z. Fan, and D.-M. Wei, Phys. Rev. D101, 063029 (2020), arXiv:1912.08122 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  51. [52]

    H. T. Cromartieet al.(NANOGrav), Nature Astron.4, 72 (2019), arXiv:1904.06759 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  52. [53]

    Iida and E

    K. Iida and E. Itou, PTEP2022, 111B01 (2022), arXiv:2207.01253 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  53. [54]

    K. Iida, E. Itou, K. Murakami, and D. Suenaga, JHEP10, 022, arXiv:2405.20566 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv

  54. [55]

    B. B. Brandt, F. Cuteri, and G. Endrodi, JHEP07, 055, arXiv:2212.14016 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv

  55. [56]

    G. Baym, S. Furusawa, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, and H. Togashi, Astrophys. J.885, 42 (2019), arXiv:1903.08963 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  56. [57]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D30, 272 (1984)

    work page 1984

  57. [58]

    B. A. Freedman and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. D16, 1169 (1977)

    work page 1977

  58. [59]

    E. S. Fraga and P. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. D71, 105014 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412298. 13

    work page arXiv 2005

  59. [60]

    J. O. Andersen and M. P. Nødtvedt, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2605.05816 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  60. [61]

    Y . Qiu, D. Radice, S. Richers, F. M. Guercilena, A. Perego, and M. Bhattacharyya, Phys. Rev. D112, 123039 (2025), arXiv:2510.15028 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [62]

    Haque, R

    S. Haque, R. Mallick, and S. K. Thakur, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527, 11575 (2023), arXiv:2207.14485 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  62. [63]

    Blacker, A

    S. Blacker, A. Bauswein, and S. Typel, Phys. Rev. D108, 063032 (2023), arXiv:2304.01971 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  63. [64]

    Huang, L

    Y .-J. Huang, L. Baiotti, T. Kojo, K. Takami, H. Sotani, H. To- gashi, T. Hatsuda, S. Nagataki, and Y .-Z. Fan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 181101 (2022), arXiv:2203.04528 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  64. [65]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y . Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, K. Hotokezaka, and K. Kyutoku, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 091404 (2023), arXiv:2205.03882 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  65. [66]

    E. R. Most, A. Motornenko, J. Steinheimer, V . Dexheimer, M. Hanauske, L. Rezzolla, and H. Stoecker, Phys. Rev. D107, 043034 (2023), arXiv:2201.13150 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  66. [67]

    Harada, K

    R. Harada, K. Cannon, K. Hotokezaka, and K. Kyutoku, Phys. Rev. D110, 123005 (2024), arXiv:2310.13603 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  67. [68]

    Hensh, Y .-J

    S. Hensh, Y .-J. Huang, T. Kojo, L. Baiotti, K. Takami, S. Na- gataki, and H. Sotani, Astrophys. J. Lett.991, L12 (2025), arXiv:2407.09446 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [69]

    Z. Miao, Z. Zhu, and D. Lai, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 091402 (2025), arXiv:2411.09013 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [70]

    Essick, P

    R. Essick, P. Landry, and D. E. Holz, Phys. Rev. D101, 063007 (2020), arXiv:1910.09740 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  70. [71]

    Tarantola,Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation(Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 2005)

    A. Tarantola,Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation(Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 2005)

    work page 2005