Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 138 references

An ωρ coupling eases the clash between two-solar-mass stars and GW170817 tides in a chiral confining mean-field model, but ordinary RMF still wins without a core phase transition.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 07:50 UTC pith:ERIGWRIH

load-bearing objection Careful Bayesian extension of their prior RMF-CC model that cleanly shows ωρ largely fixes the 2 M⊙–Λ tension while ordinary RMF still wins without a core phase transition. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08412 v1 pith:ERIGWRIH submitted 2026-07-09 nucl-th astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Relativistic Mean Field Approach with Chiral Symmetry Breaking and Quark Confinement in the light of Astrophysical Observations

Bikram Keshari Pradhan , Mohamad Chamseddine , J\'er\^ome Margueron , Hubert Hansen , Guy Chanfray , Jean-Paul Ebran , Elias Khan This is my paper
classification nucl-th astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords relativistic mean fieldchiral confining modelneutron star equation of stateBayesian inferenceωρ couplingtidal deformabilityGW170817lattice QCD
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tests a relativistic mean-field model that builds in both chiral symmetry breaking and quark confinement inside nucleons, previously shown to describe finite nuclei well. When the model is constrained by nuclear saturation properties, lattice QCD nucleon-mass data, and multi-messenger neutron-star observations, it cannot simultaneously support stars of roughly two solar masses and the soft tidal deformability measured in GW170817. Adding a simple ω–ρ cross-coupling largely removes that tension and is strongly preferred by Bayes factors, while a non-linear ω self-interaction is unnecessary. Because chiral dynamics tightly constrain the scalar sector and confinement softens the high-density equation of state, the model is forced to stiffen nuclear matter near saturation with an incompressibility near 300 MeV. Under identical nuclear and astrophysical constraints, a conventional relativistic mean-field model is statistically preferred over the chiral-confining versions, provided the neutron-star core remains purely nucleonic.

Core claim

Within the RMF-CC framework an additional ωρ coupling, favored by Bayes-factor analysis, substantially alleviates the tension between ~2 M⊙ stars and the GW170817 tidal deformability, while a non-linear ω self-interaction is not required; under the same nuclear and astrophysical constraints the ordinary RMF model is preferred over RMF-CC when no core phase transition is allowed.

What carries the argument

The chiral confining model (RMF-CC) realizes spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking through a linear-sigma-model scalar potential and incorporates nucleon polarizability (confinement response) via a density-dependent effective mass MN(s); the ωρ cross-coupling λωρ then supplies the minimal isovector lever that softens the symmetry-energy slope and tidal deformabilities without spoiling the two-solar-mass constraint.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis assumes the neutron-star core is made only of nucleons and leptons, with no phase transition to hyperons or deconfined quark matter.

What would settle it

A simultaneous Bayesian comparison that includes an explicit first-order or crossover transition to quark matter (or hyperons) and shows that the Bayes-factor preference reverses in favor of RMF-CC would falsify the claim that ordinary RMF is preferred under purely nucleonic cores.

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

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a Bayesian analysis (MultiNest nested sampling) of the relativistic mean-field chiral confining model (RMF-CC) that incorporates both chiral symmetry breaking (linear sigma-model potential) and confinement via nucleon polarizability. Models are constrained by nuclear empirical parameters near saturation, multi-messenger NS observations (2 M☉ pulsars, NICER M–R, GW170817 tidal deformability), and/or lattice-QCD nucleon-mass parameters a2, a4. The baseline RMF-CC exhibits tension between supporting ~2 M☉ stars and the soft tidal deformability of GW170817. An additional ωρ coupling (favored by Bayes factors) substantially alleviates this tension by lowering Lsym and Λ1.4, while a non-linear ω self-interaction is disfavored (ζ ≈ 0). Because the scalar sector is tightly constrained by chiral dynamics and confinement softens the high-density EoS, the models require large Ksat ~ 300 MeV to remain stiff enough for massive NSs. Under identical NEP+Astro constraints and without a core phase transition, ordinary RMF is preferred over RMF-CC variants.

Significance. The work supplies a systematic, multi-constraint Bayesian comparison of a QCD-motivated RMF-CC framework against conventional RMF, with explicit posteriors (Tables IV–VII), sound-speed and M–R bands (Figs. 12–13), and Kass–Raftery Bayes factors (Table VIII). The demonstration that a single ωρ coupling is the minimal isovector lever that reconciles 2 M☉ and GW170817, while the high-density scalar/confinement sector forces large Ksat, is a concrete, falsifiable result for the pure-nucleonic sector. The tabulated 90 % CI posteriors and evidence estimates are reproducible and useful for subsequent model building that may include hyperons or quark matter.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and §V explicitly restrict the analysis to purely nucleonic (+ leptonic) matter with no phase transition. Under this assumption the preference for ordinary RMF and the necessity of Ksat ~ 300 MeV follow consistently from the posteriors and Bayes factors. The claim is therefore conditional; the manuscript should state more prominently (e.g., in the abstract and conclusion) that both the model ranking and the high-Ksat requirement would change if a first-order or crossover transition were allowed, so that readers do not over-generalize the result beyond the pure-nucleonic sector.
  2. §IV A and Table V: the recovered Dirac mass M*_SNM(nsat) ~ 0.78–0.85 MN is systematically higher than the values usually required for finite-nucleus ground-state properties. While the authors note this tension and cite a companion paper, the present manuscript would be strengthened by a short quantitative statement of how large a shift in M* would be needed to restore nuclear phenomenology and whether that shift remains compatible with the LQCD a2, a4 bands.
minor comments (4)
  1. Table IV: the prior for ms is written N(860,400); units (MeV) should be stated explicitly for every parameter column.
  2. Fig. 8 caption: the PDFs for the model Λ̃ distributions are said to be “scaled to fit”; the scaling factors should be given so that absolute heights can be compared.
  3. Eqs. (35)–(36): the closed-form expressions for a2 and a4 are central; a one-sentence reminder of their derivation (or a pointer to the exact equation in Ref. [90]) would help readers who have not followed the earlier CCM papers.
  4. Throughout: occasional typographical inconsistencies (“Astro F ull”, “As-tro F ull”) should be cleaned for the final version.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: Bayesian posteriors and Bayes factors are driven by external NEP/LQCD/Astro likelihoods; self-citations only define the RMF-CC baseline Lagrangian.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. IV A / Eqs. (35)–(36) and Refs. [90–92]]
    "The LQCD parameters a2 and a4 can be expressed in the closed-form connecting the three scalar parameters (ms, gs, CNS) of the RMF-CC model within the following two relations: a2 = fπ gs / m^{2}s ; a4 = – fπ gs / 2 m^{4}s (3–2 CNS)"

    The mapping itself is taken from the authors' earlier CCM papers; however it is used only as a constraint-propagation tool and is not load-bearing for the NS claims (which are fixed by external Astro likelihoods). Minor and non-central, hence score contribution of 1 only.

full rationale

The paper's central results (tension between 2 M☉ and GW170817 Λ, alleviation by ωρ, preference for ordinary RMF, Ksat ~300 MeV) are obtained by MultiNest sampling of free parameters under independent external constraints (LQCD bands on a2/a4, NEP priors, NICER/GW/2 M☉ likelihoods). The scalar-sector maps a2 = fπ gs / ms^{2} and a4 = –(fπ gs / 2 ms^{4})(3–2 CNS) are model relations used only to propagate LQCD data into the parameter space; they do not redefine the target NS observables. Bayes factors (Table VIII) and posterior medians (Tables IV–VII) are genuine outputs, not inputs. Self-citations to prior CCM papers establish the Lagrangian and the Lσ M potential but are not invoked as uniqueness theorems that force the astrophysical conclusions. The pure-nucleonic assumption is stated explicitly and does not create a definitional loop. No fitted constant is renamed a prediction, and no step reduces by construction to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central ranking of models rests on a fixed set of free meson couplings and polarizability parameters whose priors are chosen by hand, on the mean-field truncation, on the linear-sigma-model form of the chiral potential, on the absence of any high-density phase transition, and on the SLy4 crust matching. These are the ingredients that convert the external data into the reported preference for RMF over RMF-CC and for ωρ over the baseline.

free parameters (4)
  • ms, gs, CNS, gω, gρ, gδ
    Scalar and vector couplings of the RMF-CC Lagrangian; given Gaussian or uniform priors (Table IV) and sampled by MultiNest.
  • λωρ
    Strength of the ωρ cross-coupling; uniform prior U[0,1], posterior preferred non-zero.
  • ζ
    Coefficient of the ω4 self-interaction; uniform prior U[0,0.05], posterior driven to ~0.
  • c2, c3 (RMF comparison model)
    Non-linear sigma coefficients of the ordinary RMF potential used for Bayes-factor comparison.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Mean-field (Hartree) truncation of the CCM Lagrangian; pion and tensor-ρ contributions vanish.
    Stated in §II A; all equations of motion and energy density are written at this level.
  • domain assumption Linear sigma model form of the chiral potential V_LσM(s) with fixed fπ = 94 MeV.
    Eq. (4); coefficients of s³ and s⁴ are fixed by chiral symmetry rather than free.
  • ad hoc to paper No phase transition to quark matter or hyperons in the NS core.
    Explicitly declared in abstract and §V; the high-Ksat conclusion and model ranking rest on this choice.
  • domain assumption SLy4 crust matched by log-ε–log-p cubic spline between 0.1 nsat and nsat.
    §II B 2; affects low-mass radii but is standard.
  • standard math Statistical independence of LQCD, NEP and astrophysical likelihoods.
    Used to form the joint posterior (Eq. 22).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 42307 in / 2853 out tokens · 29063 ms · 2026-07-10T07:50:21.297709+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We perform a Bayesian analysis of a relativistic mean-field approach, which is an implementation of the chiral confining model with both chiral symmetry breaking and confinement effects, and which was recently proven to reproduce well the ground state properties of finite nuclei. We additionally explore the impact of couplings between $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons as well as a non-linear $\omega$ coupling. Our models are simultaneously constrained by nuclear matter properties near saturation density, multi-messenger neutron star astrophysical observations, and/or lattice QCD predictions of the nucleon mass. It exhibits tension in simultaneously reproducing the $\sim 2M_{\odot}$ massive NS and the tidal deformability inferred from GW170817. We show that an additional $\omega\rho$ coupling, favored by Bayes factor analysis, substantially alleviates this tension, while adding a non-linear $\omega$ self-interaction is not necessary for the RMF-CC model. Owing to the strong constraints on the scalar sector imposed by chiral dynamics and the softening of the equation of state at high densities induced by our treatment of confinement, the RMF-CC approach favors stiff equations of state. Since we do not consider phase transition in the core of neutron stars, this stiffening is obtained with large values of the incompressibility modulus of about $\sim300$ MeV. We finally compare the well-known RMF model with RMF-CC models with the same constraints, and we obtain a preference for the RMF model in the absence of a phase transition in the core of neutron stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08412 by Bikram Keshari Pradhan, Elias Khan, Guy Chanfray, Hubert Hansen, Jean-Paul Ebran, J\'er\^ome Margueron, Mohamad Chamseddine.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Corner plot showing the posteriors for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Corner plot showing the joint (off-diagonal panels) and marginalized (diagonal panels) posterior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: (a) Uncertainty in the NS EoS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Corner plot showing the joint (off-diagonal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Pearson’s correlation coefficient among the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Same as Figure 6, but for the joint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (a) The probability distribution function (PDF) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Posterior probability distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Same as Figure 9, but for posterior probability distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: The posterior probability distribution for the different models explored in our analysis. From left to right, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Same as Figure 4, but for a different class of RMF-CC models as labeled in the figure. (a) obtained using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Uncertainty in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Same as Figure 2, but for the resulting posteriors from different RMF-CC models, labeled by color. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The confining mechanism in RMF-CC pre￾vents the nucleon mass from decreasing at high densi￾ties nb > 4nsat, predicting a constant value for MN for high densities. As a consequence, the repulsive kinetic contribution to the EoS is limited in RMF-CC models, leading to softer EoSs. Hence, RMF-CC models predict the Mmax distribution towards smaller values compared to the RMF model, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Same as Figure 5, but for the posteriors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 138 canonical work pages · 33 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, and T. Takatsuka, Reports on Progress in Physics81, 056902 (2018), arXiv:1707.04966 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Vida˜ na, Isaac, EPJ Web Conf.227, 01018 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    J. M. Lattimer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 433 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Determination of the Equation of State of Dense Matter

    P. Danielewicz, R. Lacey, and W. G. Lynch, Science 298, 1592 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0208016 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  5. [5]

    Constraining the nuclear matter equation of state around twice saturation density

    A. Le F` evre, Y. Leifels, W. Reisdorf, J. Aichelin, and C. Hartnack, Nucl. Phys. A945, 112 (2016), arXiv:1501.05246 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Nuclear Equation of State from ground and collective excited state properties of nuclei

    X. Roca-Maza and N. Paar, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics101, 96 (2018), arXiv:1804.06256 [nucl- th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Margueron, C

    J. Margueron, C. Drischler, M. Dutra, S. Gan- dolfi, A. Gezerlis, G. Grams, S. Guillot, R. Kumar, S. Lalit, O. Louren¸ co, R. Somasundaram, I. Tews, and I. Vida˜ na, European Physical Journal A62, 22 (2026), arXiv:2506.20434 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Hartnack, H

    C. Hartnack, H. Oeschler, and J. Aichelin, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 012302 (2006)

    work page 2006

  9. [9]

    Le F` evre, Y

    A. Le F` evre, Y. Leifels, W. Reisdorf, J. Aichelin, and C. Hartnack, Nuclear Physics A945, 112 (2016)

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    Russotto, S

    P. Russotto, S. Gannon, S. Kupny, P. Lasko,et al., Phys. Rev. C94, 034608 (2016)

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Equations of state for supernovae and compact stars

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015007 (2017), arXiv:1610.03361 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    CompOSE Reference Manual

    S. Typelet al.(CompOSE Core Team), Eur. Phys. J. A58, 221 (2022), arXiv:2203.03209 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Hofmann, C

    F. Hofmann, C. M. Keil, and H. Lenske, Phys. Rev. C 64, 034314 (2001)

    work page 2001

  14. [14]

    Hagen, T

    G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, D. J. Dean, and M. Hjorth- Jensen, Phys. Rev. C82, 034330 (2010)

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    Tsukiyama, S

    K. Tsukiyama, S. K. Bogner, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 222502 (2011)

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    R. Roth, S. Binder, K. Vobig, A. Calci, J. Langhammer, and P. Navr´ atil, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 052501 (2012)

    work page 2012

  17. [17]

    Som` a, C

    V. Som` a, C. Barbieri, and T. Duguet, Phys. Rev. C87, 011303(R) (2013)

    work page 2013

  18. [18]

    J. W. Holt, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Progress in Parti- cle and Nuclear Physics73, 35 (2013), arXiv:1304.6350 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  19. [19]

    Scattering phase shifts and mixing angles for an arbitrary number of coupled channels on the lattice

    L. Bovermann, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and D. Lee, Phys. Rev. C100, 064001 (2019), arXiv:1905.02492 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    W. G. Jiang, C. Forss´ en, T. Dj¨ arv, and G. Hagen, Phys. Rev. C109, 064314 (2024), arXiv:2212.13216 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Skyrme, Nuclear Physics9, 615 (1958)

    T. Skyrme, Nuclear Physics9, 615 (1958)

    work page 1958

  22. [22]

    T. H. R. Skyrme, The Philosophical Maga- zine: A Journal of Theoretical Experimen- 22 tal and Applied Physics1, 1043 (1956), https://doi.org/10.1080/14786435608238186

    work page doi:10.1080/14786435608238186 1956

  23. [23]

    Chabanat, P

    E. Chabanat, P. Bonche, P. Haensel, J. Meyer, and R. Schaeffer, Nuclear Physics A627, 710 (1997)

    work page 1997

  24. [24]

    Col` o, H

    G. Col` o, H. Sagawa, S. Fracasso, and P. Bortignon, Physics Letters B646, 227 (2007)

    work page 2007

  25. [25]

    Stone and P.-G

    J. Stone and P.-G. Reinhard, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics58, 587–657 (2007)

    work page 2007

  26. [26]

    Vautherin and D

    D. Vautherin and D. M. Brink, Phys. Rev. C5, 626 (1972)

    work page 1972

  27. [27]

    Decharg´ e and D

    J. Decharg´ e and D. Gogny, Phys. Rev. C21, 1568 (1980)

    work page 1980

  28. [28]

    Berger, M

    J. Berger, M. Girod, and D. Gogny, Nuclear Physics A 502, 85 (1989)

    work page 1989

  29. [29]

    Sellahewa and A

    R. Sellahewa and A. Rios, Phys. Rev. C90, 054327 (2014)

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Chappert, N

    F. Chappert, N. Pillet, M. Girod, and J.-F. Berger, Phys. Rev. C91, 034312 (2015)

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    Chen, B.-J

    R. Chen, B.-J. Cai, L.-W. Chen, B.-A. Li, X.-H. Li, and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. C85, 024305 (2012)

    work page 2012

  32. [32]

    Machleidt, K

    R. Machleidt, K. Holinde, and C. Elster, Physics Re- ports149, 1 (1987)

    work page 1987

  33. [33]

    Haidenbauer and U.-G

    J. Haidenbauer and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. C72, 044005 (2005)

    work page 2005

  34. [34]

    G. Shen, C. J. Horowitz, and S. Teige, Phys. Rev. C82, 015806 (2010)

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    M. L. Cescato and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C57, 134 (1998)

    work page 1998

  36. [36]

    Nikˇ si´ c, D

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. Vretenar, P. Finelli, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C66, 024306 (2002)

    work page 2002

  37. [37]

    B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, International Journal of Modern Physics E06, 515–631 (1997)

    work page 1997

  38. [38]

    B. G. Todd-Rutel and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 122501 (2005)

    work page 2005

  39. [39]

    QCD susceptibilities and nuclear matter saturation in a chiral theory: inclusion of pion loops

    G. Chanfray and M. Ericson, Phys. Rev. C75, 015206 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0611042

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  40. [40]

    Chanfray and M

    G. Chanfray and M. Ericson, Phys. Rev. C83, 015204 (2011)

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    Chen and J

    W.-C. Chen and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C90, 044305 (2014)

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    Hornick, L

    N. Hornick, L. Tolos, A. Zacchi, J.-E. Christian, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. C98, 065804 (2018)

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    The equation of state for dense nucleonic matter from a meta-modeling. II. Predictions for neutron stars properties

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C97, 025806 (2018), arXiv:1708.06895 [nucl- th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    The equation of state for dense nucleonic matter from a metamodeling. I. Foundational aspects

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C97, 025805 (2018), arXiv:1708.06894 [nucl- th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [45]

    EoS constraints from nuclear masses and radii in a meta-modeling approach

    D. Chatterjee, F. Gulminelli, A. R. Raduta, and J. Margueron, Phys. Rev. C96, 065805 (2017), arXiv:1709.00189 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Chen, B.-J

    L.-W. Chen, B.-J. Cai, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, C. Shen, and J. Xu, Phys. Rev. C80, 014322 (2009)

    work page 2009

  47. [47]

    Li, European Physical Journal Special Topics 10.1140/epjs/s11734-026-02124-1 (2026), arXiv:2510.05508 [nucl-th]

    B.-A. Li, European Physical Journal Special Topics 10.1140/epjs/s11734-026-02124-1 (2026), arXiv:2510.05508 [nucl-th]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-026-02124-1 2026

  48. [48]

    Margueron and F

    J. Margueron and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C99, 025806 (2019)

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    Biswas, P

    B. Biswas, P. Char, R. Nandi, and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. D103, 103015 (2021)

    work page 2021

  50. [50]

    Suleiman, A

    L. Suleiman, A. F. Fantina, F. Gulminelli, and J. Read, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2512.05315 (2025), arXiv:2512.05315 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

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

    work page 2009

  52. [52]

    Lindblom, Phys

    L. Lindblom, Phys. Rev. D82, 103011 (2010)

    work page 2010

  53. [53]

    Essick, P

    R. Essick, P. Landry, and D. E. Holz, Phys. Rev. D101, 063007 (2020)

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    Landry, R

    P. Landry, R. Essick, and K. Chatziioannou, Phys. Rev. D101, 123007 (2020)

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Gorda, O

    T. Gorda, O. Komoltsev, and A. Kurkela, The Astro- physical Journal950, 107 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    S. K. Greif, G. Raaijmakers, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, and A. L. Watts, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society485, 5363 (2019), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/485/4/5363/28262089/stz654.pdf

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. Roberts, and J. W. T. Hessels, Nature467, 1081–1083 (2010)

    work page 2010

  58. [58]

    H. T. Cromartie, E. Fonseca, S. M. Ransom, P. B. De- morest, Z. Arzoumanian, H. Blumer, P. R. Brook, M. E. DeCesar, T. Dolch, J. A. Ellis, and et al., Nature As- tronomy4, 72–76 (2019)

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    Antoniadis, P

    J. Antoniadis, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, T. M. Tau- ris, R. S. Lynch, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Kramer, C. Bassa, V. S. Dhillon, T. Driebe, and et al., Science 340, 1233232–1233232 (2013)

    work page 2013

  60. [60]

    B. P. Abbott and et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  61. [61]

    B. P. Abbott and et al., The Astrophysical Journal848, L12 (2017)

    work page 2017

  62. [62]

    B. P. Abbott and et al. (The LIGO Scientific Collabo- ration and the Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018)

    work page 2018

  63. [63]

    Abbott, R

    B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ack- ley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Adhikari, V. Adya, and et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X9, 011001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, A. Adams, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters915, L5 (2021)

    work page 2021

  65. [65]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, and F. A. et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters892, L3 (2020)

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, S. M. Morsink, A. V. Bilous, Z. Arzouma- nian, D. Choudhury, J. S. Deneva, and et al., The As- trophysical Journal Letters918, L27 (2021)

    work page 2021

  67. [67]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, P. S. Ray, R. M. Ludlam, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, C. L. Baker, A. V. Bilous, D. Chakrabarty, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal887, L21 (2019)

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewenstein, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, M. T. Wolff, C. L. Baker, T. Cazeau, S. Man- thripragada, C. B. Markwardt, T. Okajima, S. Pollard, I. Cognard, H. T. Cromartie, E. Fonseca, L. Guillemot, M. Kerr, A. Parthasarathy, T. T. ...

    work page 2021

  69. [69]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bog- danov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, R. M. Ludlam, S. Mahmoodifar, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, T. E. Strohmayer, K. S. Wood, T. Enoto, R. Foster, 23 T. Okajima, G. Prigozhin, and Y. Soong, The Astro- physical Journal887, L24 (2019)

    work page 2019

  70. [70]

    Arzoumanian, K

    Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, C. L. Baker, T. Cazeau, P. Hestnes, J. W. Kellogg, S. J. Kenyon, R. P. Kozon, K. C. Liu, S. S. Manthripragada, C. B. Markwardt, A. L. Mitchell, J. W. Mitchell, C. A. Mon- roe, T. Okajima, S. E. Pollard, D. F. Powers, B. J. Savadkin, L. B. Winternitz, P. T. Chen, M. R. Wright, R. Foster, G. Prigozhin, R. Remillard, and J. Do...

    work page 2014

  71. [71]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C97, 025805 (2018)

    work page 2018

  72. [72]

    Miyatsu, M.-K

    T. Miyatsu, M.-K. Cheoun, and K. Saito, The Astro- physical Journal929, 82 (2022)

    work page 2022

  73. [73]

    L. L. Lopes, V. B. T. Alves, C. O. V. Flores, and G. Lu- gones, Phys. Rev. D108, 083042 (2023)

    work page 2023

  74. [74]

    Maiti and D

    R. Maiti and D. Chatterjee, Nucl. Phys. A1066, 123267 (2026), arXiv:2412.04373 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    Imposing multi-physics constraints at different densities on the Neutron Star Equation of State

    S. Ghosh, D. Chatterjee, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 37 (2022), arXiv:2107.09371 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  76. [76]

    Malik, V

    T. Malik, V. Dexheimer, and C. m. c. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D110, 043042 (2024)

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    Biswas and P

    B. Biswas and P. Char, Phys. Rev. D112, 063049 (2025)

    work page 2025

  78. [78]

    Tewari, S

    S. Tewari, S. Chatterjee, D. Kumar, and R. Mallick, Phys. Rev. D111, 103009 (2025)

    work page 2025

  79. [79]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, E. Katerini, A. Kurkela, J. N¨ attil¨ a, V. Paschalidis, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. X12, 011058 (2022)

    work page 2022

  80. [80]

    P. T. H. Pang, I. Tews, M. W. Coughlin, M. Bulla, C. Van Den Broeck, and T. Dietrich, Astrophys. J.922, 14 (2021), arXiv:2105.08688 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.