Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 65 references

Compact star and compact star matter properties from a baryonic extended linear sigma model with explicit chiral symmetry breaking

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A chiral effective model of dense matter requires the pion–nucleon sigma term to be about −600 MeV inside neutron stars.

desk verdict The paper's central claim that sigma_piN must be around -600 MeV is a parameter-fit result, not a model prediction, but the underlying Lagrangian work is careful enough to merit a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.23477 v2 pith:2EC454FV submitted 2025-12-29 nucl-th astro-ph.HE

Yao Ma , Yong-Liang Ma , Lu-Qi Zhang This is my paper
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstarshyperonschiralsymmetrybreakingpion–nucleonsigmatermrelativisticmeanfieldequationofstateextendedlinearmodelmass–radiusrelation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper builds a three-flavor chiral Lagrangian that includes explicit chiral symmetry breaking and uses the relativistic mean-field approximation to connect nuclear matter to neutron-star structure. It shows that while the model reproduces vacuum hadron masses (except the lightest sigma meson) and saturation properties, the canonical positive sigma term σπN ≈ +75 MeV cannot produce a mass–radius relation consistent with GW170817 and pulsar observations. The author argues that matching those data forces σπN to around −600 MeV, reversing the contribution of explicit breaking to the nucleon mass. This is interpreted as evidence that the low-energy constants of chiral symmetry breaking may be strongly density dependent.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pion–nucleon sigma term σπN, defined via the Hellmann–Feynman theorem as σπN = M ∂mN/∂M, where M is proportional to the light-quark mass and the scalar background field ξ implements explicit breaking. σπN controls the scalar–meson mean-field couplings in the RMF equations of motion, which determine the equation of state; the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equation then maps that EOS to the mass–radius relation. Varying σπN at fixed hadron spectra and saturation properties reshapes the high-density part of the EOS and therefore the predicted neutron-star radii and maximum mass.

What would settle it

Compute the equation of state of the same Lagrangian with a method that explicitly includes u-channel exchange self-consistently, and check whether the +75 MeV parameter set yields real, stable solutions and a mass–radius relation consistent with GW170817 and MSP J0740+6620. If such a treatment keeps σπN positive and still satisfies the observations, the paper's negative σπN conclusion collapses. Alternatively, an experimental determination of σπN at n ≈ 2–4n0 that finds a positive value would directly contradict the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the baryonic extended linear sigma model with leading-order explicit chiral symmetry breaking (bELSM-ξ) and the relativistic mean-field approximation, the paper claims that matching the observed neutron-star mass–radius constraints of GW170817 and MSP J0740+6620 forces σπN ≈ −600 MeV rather than the vacuum value of 32–89 MeV. This negative σπN reverses the contribution of explicit breaking to the nucleon mass (mN = m + σπN), making m exceed the nucleon mass by roughly 600 MeV at high density. The fitted parameter sets continue to reproduce vacuum hadron masses (except the σ meson) and saturation properties such as n0, E0, and K. The paper reads this as evidence that the low-energy con

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats the loss of real mean-field solutions for σπN ≈ +75 MeV above 4n0 as a limitation of the RMF approximation, yet trusts the same approximation when extracting negative σπN values at the same densities; if that loss instead signals a genuine breakdown of the Lagrangian's strong multi-meson couplings, the negative σπN becomes an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If σπN is indeed ≈ −600 MeV in dense matter, chiral effective theories cannot use vacuum low-energy constants at neutron-star densities; density-dependent counterterms are required.
  • The hyperon threshold is pushed to ≈2.5–3n0, so hyperons do not dramatically reduce the maximum mass, easing the hyperon puzzle in this framework.
  • Both a strongly negative σπN and a large incompressibility K(n0) ≈ 500 MeV produce acceptable mass–radius curves, giving distinct parameter branches with different predictions for radii and tidal deformability.
  • Future radius or tidal-deformability measurements can discriminate the negative-σπN branch from conventional hadronic equations of state.
  • The paper implies that next-to-leading-order terms, which split the σ couplings of the Λ and nucleon, will change the hyperon onset density and hence the shape of the mass–radius curve.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's logic implies a testable prediction: if σπN is independently measured around 2–4n0 (e.g., from pion–nucleus scattering or high-density lattice QCD), it should be negative; a positive value would falsify the density-dependence claim.
  • Because the RMF approximation produces no real solutions for the physically preferred +75 MeV set above 4n0, the negative-σπN result may be an artifact of the missing u-channel exchange rather than a genuine property of dense matter; an EOS computed with explicit exchange terms would resolve this.
  • The near-degeneracy between σπN ≈ −600 MeV and K(n0) ≈ 500 MeV suggests the fitted parameter space is flexible; a precise measurement like the neutron-skin thickness of 208Pb, which constrains the symmetry-energy slope, could break this degeneracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a three-flavor baryonic extended linear sigma model with explicit chiral symmetry breaking (bELSM-ξ), applies the relativistic mean field (RMF) approximation to beta-equilibrated neutron star matter with hyperons, and solves the TOV equations to obtain mass-radius relations. The authors report that vacuum hadron masses (except the lightest scalar σ) and nuclear matter saturation properties can be reproduced, but that the physically calibrated σπN ≈ +75 MeV parameter set has no real RMF solutions above about 4n0. By treating σπN and K(n0) as adjustable parameters, they find that σπN ≈ −600 MeV (or K(n0) ≈ 500 MeV) yields mass-radius relations compatible with MSP J0740+6620 and GW170817, and interpret this as evidence that explicit chiral symmetry breaking, and hence σπN, may become negative at high density.

Significance. If the central claim were established, it would be a striking result: the pion-nucleon sigma term changing sign in dense matter would imply a strong density dependence of low-energy constants and would link neutron star observations to the chiral symmetry breaking pattern of QCD. The paper's strengths include a concrete chiral Lagrangian with explicit symmetry breaking, reproduction of many vacuum masses and saturation properties, and a useful comparison with Walecka-type models. However, the headline inference is not supported by the calculation as presented: the negative σπN values are imposed as fixed input parameters rather than derived as density-dependent quantities, and the model's own reliability criterion is applied selectively to the +75 MeV set while being ignored for the negative-σπN sets.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (10) and Table I] The central claim that σπN is 'around −600 MeV' in dense matter is not a dynamical result. In Eq. (10), σπN is a fixed input parameter (mN = m + σπN) set at a chosen value and held constant; the model never computes a density-dependent σπN. Scanning σπN over negative values to satisfy a given M-R relation is parameter fitting, not evidence that explicit chiral symmetry breaking becomes negative at high density. As stated, the Summary's 'suggesting a possible density dependence of the low energy constants' is an interpretation imposed on the fit, not a prediction of the model.
  2. [Sec. IV, Fig. 1 and Eqs. (B2)–(B4)] The paper applies asymmetric trust in the RMF approximation. The physically calibrated σπN-75+ set is abandoned above ≈4n0 because the RMF EOMs have no real solutions, and this is attributed to RMF limitations (missing u-channel, convergence bound). But the same RMF is then used to compute the EOS and M-R relations for σπN-400− and σπN-600− up to central densities of 5–8n0. No evidence is provided that these negative-σπN sets have a global minimum of the effective potential, a physical vacuum-connected solution branch, positive effective masses, or causal sound speeds across the full density range. If the loss of real solutions signals that the strong multi-meson couplings cannot be extrapolated, the same caveat applies equally to the negative-σπN sets; if it signals a genuine RMF limitation, the negative-σπN predictions inherit that limitation at the same or higher densities.
  3. [Tables IV–VI] The K(n0) ≈ 500 MeV parameter sets are presented as improving the M-R relation, but this value is far outside the empirical range K(n0) = 230 ± 30 MeV quoted in Table III. Since both σπN and K(n0) are tuned to satisfy the same astrophysical data that the paper then claims to reproduce, the agreement with MSP J0740+6620 and GW170817 is a fit rather than a falsifiable prediction. The statement in Sec. VI that 'the M-R relation can be improved to describe the NSs around 2M⊙' is therefore not a test of the model's microscopic content.
  4. [Tables II and V; Sec. IV upper-bound estimate] The model predicts mσ ≈ 985 MeV, roughly twice the empirical value of 475 ± 75 MeV quoted in Tables II and V. The authors acknowledge this, but it has a direct consequence for their RMF-validity argument: the convergence bound |2kF|² < mσ² used in Sec. IV assumes mσ ≈ 500 MeV, whereas the model's actual σ mass is ≈ 985 MeV. With the model's own mσ, the estimated RMF-applicable density would be higher, not lower, making the stated reason for the failure of the +75 set quantitatively inconsistent with the model's own parameters. More importantly, the claim that vacuum spectra are 'well reproduced except σ' understates the role of this discrepancy in the central argument.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are many typographical and grammatical errors, e.g., 'lake of' (Introduction), 'pannel' (Figs. 3–7), 'arround' (Sec. VI), 'contribtuion' (Appendix B), 'resonable' (Sec. VI), and 'fileds' in equations. The manuscript would benefit from careful proofreading.
  2. [Figs. 3–7] The figures show M-R relations and 'baryon fraction' but no uncertainty bands or error propagation from the parameter choices or from the astrophysical constraints. Statements such as 'more favored by GW170817 constraints' are qualitative; a quantitative statement of which regions are inside/outside the 90% credible envelopes would improve clarity.
  3. [Sec. VI] The sentence 'the solution problem for σπN-100− disappears but remains for σπN-75+' is hard to parse; specify that this refers to the K ≈ 500 MeV sets. Also, the statement that σπN is 'suggested to be around −600 MeV' should be explicitly labeled as a parameter choice under a fixed RMF scheme, not a model prediction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Parameter scan is transparent; no circular reduction; criticism is a correctness concern, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central assertion that sigma_piN ~ -600 MeV is a posterior parameter constraint, not an independent prediction. In Sec. IV the authors state explicitly: "we vary sigma_piN by regarding it as a free parameter," and in Sec. VI: "we adjusted the value of sigma_piN to be negative." The value is an input selected to reproduce the GW170817/J0740 M-R constraints, so the resulting agreement is a consistency check of the forward model, not an independent derived output. No equation defines sigma_piN in terms of the neutron-star observables, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the paper uses the astrophysical data as a constraint and reports the required value. The asymmetric trust in RMF (abandoning sigma_piN-75+ above about 4n0 because real solutions of the RMF EOMs vanish, while trusting the same RMF for the negative-sigma_piN sets in the same density regime) is a substantive physical/robustness concern, as is the fact that sigma_piN is not computed as a density-dependent quantity; these are not definitional circularity. The self-citations [36,53] supply the model framework but do not themselves assert the negative-sigma_piN result, so they are not a load-bearing circular chain. This is an honest non-finding: the manuscript is transparent about tuning the parameters and does not present the tuning as a first-principles derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on parameters that are fitted to vacuum/saturation data and then re-tuned to astrophysical data; no independent handle is provided.

free parameters (5)
  • σπN (pion-nucleon sigma term) = -625.7 MeV for the σπN-600−K set; -104.0 and -402.1 MeV for other sets
    Treated as a free parameter; chosen by hand so the M-R relation satisfies MSP J0740+6620 and GW170817 (Secs IV–V). Not derived from data or from a mechanism.
  • K(n0) (incompressibility at saturation) = 518.8–521.9 MeV
    Raised from the empirical 200–260 MeV band to stiffen the EOS and increase the maximum neutron-star mass (Table IV, Fig 5).
  • xω = gωΛΛ/gωNN = 1.148–1.318 depending on set
    Fixed by imposing UΛ = -28 MeV, which controls the hyperon onset density.
  • ξ0 (scalar background VEV) = 132.5 MeV for σπN-600−K; -60.26 to 132.5 MeV across sets
    Controls the strength of explicit chiral symmetry breaking; adjusted together with other parameters to realize each chosen σπN.
  • Remaining Table I/IV couplings (c2, G, α3, α8, h̃2, g̃3, a1, b1–b5, g) = Listed in Table IV for σπN-600−K
    Fitted to hadron mass spectra and nuclear-matter saturation properties; refit for every σπN choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption RMF approximation is valid for the extracted parameter sets at densities up to several n0
    The whole EOS is computed by replacing meson fields with classical expectation values. The paper itself shows no real RMF solution beyond ~4n0 for the +75 MeV set, yet trusts RMF for negative-σπN sets at the same densities (Sec IV, Fig 1).
  • ad hoc to paper Leading-order explicit chiral breaking with constant ξ is sufficient
    Only terms linear in the scalar background ξ are kept; the resulting σπN then has to be varied by hand far outside its vacuum range to fit stars (Eq 2a, Table I).
  • domain assumption Only nucleons and Λ hyperons contribute to β-equilibrium matter
    The EOMs and Hamiltonian in Appendix B include p, n, Λ only; Σ and Ξ masses are tabulated but not included, although the text refers to 'hyperons'.
  • ad hoc to paper A parameter set is acceptable only if RMF EOMs have real solutions
    Sets with no real solution above 4n0 (σπN-75+) are discarded; the lack of real solutions is blamed on RMF rather than on the Lagrangian, and then negative-σπN sets are used (Sec IV).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Compact star and compact star matter properties from a baryonic extended linear sigma model with explicit chiral symmetry breaking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2EC454FV

@misc{pith2026251223477,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Compact star and compact star matter properties from a baryonic extended linear sigma model with explicit chiral symmetry breaking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2EC454FV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.23477}
}
abstract

Based on a baryonic extended linear sigma model including explicit chiral symmetry breaking effect, the structure of neutron stars with the emergence of hyperons is investigated using the relativistic mean field approximation. It is found that, except for the lightest scalar meson $\sigma$ whose structure is not well understood so far, the vacuum mass spectra of relevant hadrons and nuclear matter properties around saturation density can be well reproduced. Nevertheless, based on the present model and the applied relativistic mean field approach, we found that, to have a realistic mass-radius relation of neutron stars, the $\pi N$ sigma term $\sigma_{\pi N}$ that denotes the contribution of explicit symmetry breaking should deviate from its empirical values at vacuum. Specifically, $\sigma_{\pi N}\sim -600$ MeV, rather than $(32\text{--}89) \rm \ MeV$ at vacuum. With an appropriate choice of $\sigma_{\pi N}$ and $K(n_0)$, our framework can give a more observationally favored mass-radius relation of neutron stars with the emergence of hyperons, suggesting a possible density dependence of the low energy constants, at least within the present leading order framework with the relativistic mean field approach. The present result provides a new perspective on the relation between microscopic explicit chiral symmetry breaking in dense matter and macroscopic structure of compact stars and calls for more systematic treatments beyond leading order relativistic mean field calculation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.23477 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 43 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scienti c, Virgo, Fermi GBM, INTEGRAL, IceCube, AstroSat Cadmium Zinc Telluride Imager Team, IPN, Insight-Hxmt, ANTARES, 12 TABLE VII. The choices of the parameters in model ( C1). The masses are in units of MeV. A is in unit of fm −1, and the other couplings are dimensionless. xσ = gσΛΛ/gσN N. xσ = 1.000(0.6000) for TM1-H1(0.6),...

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Akmal, V

    A. Akmal, V. R. Pandharipande, and D. G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1804 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9804027

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Astrophys. J. 550, 426 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0002232

    arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Science 304, 536 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0405262

    arXiv 2004

  5. [5]

    A. W. Steiner, J. M. Lattimer, and E. F. Brown, Astro- phys. J. 722, 33 (2010), arXiv:1005.0811 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    Hebeler, J

    K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, Astrophys. J. 773, 11 (2013) , arXiv:1303.4662 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, and T. Takatsuka, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 056902 (2018) , arXiv:1707.04966 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Ma and M

    Y.-L. Ma and M. Rho, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 113, 103791 (2020), arXiv:1909.05889 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Brandes and W

    L. Brandes and W. Weise, Symmetry 16, 111 (2024) , arXiv:2312.11937 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55, 364 (1939)

    1939

  3. [11]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volko ,Phys. Rev. 55, 374 (1939)

    1939

  4. [12]

    S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky, Black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars: The physics of compact objects (1983)

    1983

  5. [13]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 30, 272 (1984)

    1984

  6. [14]

    A. Gal, E. V. Hungerford, and D. J. Millener, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035004 (2016), arXiv:1605.00557 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Weissenborn, D

    S. Weissenborn, D. Chatterjee, and J. Scha ner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. C 85, 065802 (2012) , [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 90, 019904 (2014)], arXiv:1112.0234 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Weissenborn, D

    S. Weissenborn, D. Chatterjee, and J. Scha ner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A 881, 62 (2012) , arXiv:1111.6049 [astro- ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Chatterjee and I

    D. Chatterjee and I. Vida~ na, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 29 (2016), arXiv:1510.06306 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Weber, Prog

    F. Weber, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 54, 193 (2005) , arXiv:astro-ph/0407155

    2005 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Weissenborn, I

    S. Weissenborn, I. Sagert, G. Pagliara, M. Hempel, and J. Scha ner-Bielich, Astrophys. J. Lett. 740, L14 (2011), arXiv:1102.2869 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    F. Ozel, D. Psaltis, S. Ransom, P. Demorest, and M. Alford, Astrophys. J. Lett. 724, L199 (2010) , arXiv:1010.5790 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Scha ner-Bielich, Nucl

    J. Scha ner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A 804, 309 (2008) , arXiv:0801.3791 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ambartsumyan and G

    V. Ambartsumyan and G. Saakyan, Soviet Astronomy, Vol. 4, p. 187 4, 187 (1960)

    1960

  15. [23]

    H. J. Schulze, A. Lejeune, J. Cugnon, M. Baldo, and U. Lombardo, Phys. Lett. B 355, 21 (1995)

    1995

  16. [24]

    Katayama and K

    T. Katayama and K. Saito, \Neutron stars with Hyper- ons in Dirac-Brueckner-Hartree-Fock approach," (2014), arXiv:1410.7166 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. L. Zdunik and P. Haensel,Astron. Astrophys. 551, A61 (2013), arXiv:1211.1231 [astro-ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Oertel, C

    M. Oertel, C. Provid^ encia, F. Gulminelli, and A. R. Raduta, J. Phys. G 42, 075202 (2015) , arXiv:1412.4545 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    N. K. Glendenning, Phys. Lett. B 114, 392 (1982)

    1982

  20. [28]

    Hofmann, C

    F. Hofmann, C. M. Keil, and H. Lenske, Phys. Rev. C 64, 034314 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0007050

    2001 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bednarek, P

    I. Bednarek, P. Haensel, J. Zdunik, M. Bejger, and R. Ma nka, Astronomy & Astrophysics543, A157 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Y. Lim, C. H. Hyun, K. Kwak, and C.-H. Lee, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24, 1550100 (2015), arXiv:1412.5722 [nucl- th]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Takatsuka, S

    T. Takatsuka, S. Nishizaki, and Y. Yamamoto, The Eu- ropean Physical Journal A-Hadrons and Nuclei 13, 213 (2002)

    2002

  24. [32]

    Lonardoni, A

    D. Lonardoni, A. Lovato, S. Gandol , and F. Pederiva, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 092301 (2015) , arXiv:1407.4448 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Alford, D

    M. Alford, D. Blaschke, A. Drago, T. Kl ahn, G. Pagliara, and J. Scha ner-Bielich, Nature 445, E7 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Kl ahn, R

    T. Kl ahn, R. Lastowiecki, and D. B. Blaschke, Phys. Rev. D 88, 085001 (2013), arXiv:1307.6996 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Masuda, T

    K. Masuda, T. Hatsuda, and T. Takatsuka, Astrophys. 13 J. 764, 12 (2013), arXiv:1205.3621 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ma and Y.-L

    Y. Ma and Y.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 109, 074022 (2024) , arXiv:2311.07899 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    A. H. Fariborz, R. Jora, and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 72, 034001 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0506170

    2005 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A. H. Fariborz, R. Jora, and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 77, 034006 (2008), arXiv:0707.0843 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. H. Fariborz, R. Jora, and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 79, 074014 (2009), arXiv:0902.2825 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Parganlija, F

    D. Parganlija, F. Giacosa, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 82, 054024 (2010), arXiv:1003.4934 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. T. Lenaghan, D. H. Rischke, and J. Scha ner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 62, 085008 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0004006

    2000 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Scherer, Adv

    S. Scherer, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 27, 277 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0210398

    2003

  35. [43]

    Gell-Mann, Phys

    M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett. 8, 214 (1964)

    1964

  36. [44]

    Okubo, Prog

    S. Okubo, Prog. Theor. Phys. 27, 949 (1962)

    1962

  37. [45]

    B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 16, 1 (1986)

    1986

  38. [46]

    B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 6, 515 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9701058

    1997 arXiv

  39. [47]

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

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scienti c, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Sedrakian, J.-J

    A. Sedrakian, J.-J. Li, and F. Weber, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 131, 104041 (2023), arXiv:2212.01086 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bernard, N

    V. Bernard, N. Kaiser, and U.-G. Meissner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 4, 193 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9501384

    1995 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Meissner, PoS LAT2005, 009 (2006) , arXiv:hep- lat/0509029

    U.-G. Meissner, PoS LAT2005, 009 (2006) , arXiv:hep- lat/0509029

    2006

  44. [52]

    N. K. Glendenning and S. A. Moszkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2414 (1991)

    1991

  45. [53]

    Ma and Y.-L

    Y. Ma and Y.-L. Ma, \Composition of Scalar Mesons and Their E ects on Nuclear Matter Properties in an Ex- tended Linear Sigma Model," (2025), arXiv:2507.10049 [nucl-th]

    2025

  46. [54]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Scherer, Prog

    S. Scherer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 64, 1 (2010) , arXiv:0908.3425 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  48. [56]

    D. J. Millener, C. B. Dover, and A. Gal, Phys. Rev. C 38, 2700 (1988)

    1988

  49. [57]

    J. M. Lattimer and Y. Lim, Astrophys. J. 771, 51 (2013), arXiv:1203.4286 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Lourenco, J. S. Sa Martins, A. Del no, J. R. Stone, and P. D. Stevenson, Phys. Rev. C 85, 035201 (2012), arXiv:1202.3902 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Xiong, Y

    J.-Y. Xiong, Y. Ma, B.-K. Sheng, and Y.-L. Ma, (2025), arXiv:2511.04353 [nucl-th]

    2025

  52. [60]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Hu, and P. Liu, Phys. Rev. C 97, 015805 (2018), arXiv:1801.01984 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    K. A. Maslov, E. E. Kolomeitsev, and D. N. Voskresen- sky, Phys. Rev. C 92, 052801 (2015) , arXiv:1508.03771 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Scha ner and I

    J. Scha ner and I. N. Mishustin, Phys. Rev. C 53, 1416 (1996), arXiv:nucl-th/9506011

    1996 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Rosenzweig, J

    C. Rosenzweig, J. Schechter, and C. G. Trahern, Phys. Rev. D 21, 3388 (1980)

    1980

  56. [64]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Louren co, S. S. Avancini, B. V. Carlson, A. Del no, D. P. Menezes, C. Provid^ encia, S. Typel, and J. R. Stone, Phys. Rev. C 90, 055203 (2014) , arXiv:1405.3633 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Sugahara and H

    Y. Sugahara and H. Toki, Nucl. Phys. A 579, 557 (1994)

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.