Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Nuclear matter properties from chiral-scale effective theory including a dilatonic scalar meson

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that chiral-scale effective theory including a dilatonic scalar meson, solved in the relativistic mean-field approximation, reproduces nuclear saturation properties and predicts neutron star mass-radius relations and…

desk verdict The nuclear matter fits and the incompressibility kink are worth attention, but the neutron star claim is built on pure neutron matter and overstates agreement with GW170817. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19023 v3 pith:UQM5UAC6 submitted 2024-12-26 nucl-th astro-ph.HEhep-ph

Lu-Qi Zhang , Yao Ma , Yong-Liang Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords chiral-scaleeffectivetheorydilatonmesonhiddenlocalsymmetryBrown-Rhoscalingrelativisticmeanfieldnuclearmatterenergyneutronstar
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

This paper is trying to establish that scale symmetry, realized through a dilatonic scalar meson, can describe both nuclear matter around saturation density and neutron stars of nearly three solar masses within one theoretical framework. The framework, called bsHLS, extends chiral effective theory with hidden local symmetry and a dilaton field, and is solved in the relativistic mean-field approximation. A single parameter set reproduces empirical saturation properties, and the same equation of state yields neutron star mass-radius relations and tidal deformabilities consistent with GW170817, PSR J0740+6620, and PSR J0030+0451, with a maximum mass near $2.8\,M_\odot$ in a pure hadronic phase. Compared with Walecka-type models, bsHLS improves the density behavior of the symmetry energy and incompressibility without adding new degrees of freedom such as the $\delta$ meson. If correct, this connects QCD symmetry patterns to macroscopic neutron star observables and offers a hadronic alternative to explanations that require quark matter or extra mesons.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bsHLS Lagrangian, built from chiral effective theory plus hidden local symmetry for vector mesons and a dilaton field $\chi=f_\chi\Phi=f_\chi e^{\sigma/f_\chi}$ that realizes scale symmetry nonlinearly. The parameter $\beta'$ is the anomalous dimension of gluon field operators and controls how the dilaton couples to the other mesons; $h_5,h_6$ are fixed by saddle-point conditions and by the scalar meson mass. Medium dependence is put in through Brown-Rho scaling, $\Phi^*=1/(1+r(\rho_n+\rho_p)/n_0)$, applied to meson and nucleon masses. Solving the equations of motion for $\omega,\rho,\sigma$ in the relativistic mean-field approximation gives the energy density, whose density dependence produces a kink in $\langle\chi\rangle^*$ at intermediate densities; this kink is the mechanism that makes the equation of state soft near $2n_0$ (keeping tidal deformability compatible with GW170817) yet stiff enough at higher density to support a near-$3M_\odot$ star.

What would settle it

Recompute the TOV solutions for the same bsHLS-H Lagrangian with $\beta$-equilibrated $npe\mu$ matter instead of pure neutron matter: if the maximum mass falls below the measured $2.08\,M_\odot$ of PSR J0740+6620, or the $\Lambda_{1.4}$ value leaves the GW170817 credible interval used by the paper, the central claim is falsified. Alternatively, a heavy-ion measurement showing the symmetry energy remains stiff rather than soft near $2n_0$ would rule out the kink mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the bsHLS Lagrangian—chiral-scale effective theory with hidden local symmetry and a dilaton field $\chi=f_\chi\Phi=f_\chi e^{\sigma/f_\chi}$—can, in the relativistic mean-field approximation, reproduce nuclear matter saturation properties and simultaneously produce neutron star mass-radius relations that fall inside current observational constraints. With the 'bsHLS-H' parameter set ($\beta'\simeq1.15$, $r\simeq0.19$, $M_\sigma=m_\sigma f_\chi\simeq2.3\times10^5$ MeV$^2$), the theory gives $n_0=0.159$ fm$^{-3}$, $e_0=-16.0$ MeV, $K_0=284$ MeV, and symmetry energies consistent with empirical estimates near and above saturation. At intermediate densities the dilaton expectation value develops a kink—a nonlinear manifestation of scale symmetry—that makes the symmetry energy soften and the incompressibility surge, and the paper claims this kink is what allows the maximum neutron star mass to reach about $2.8\,M_\odot$ while the tidal deformability $\Lambda_{1.4}$ stays within the quoted GW170817 constraints. The paper also says the value of $\beta'$ and the density flow of $\langle\chi\rangle^*$ strongly affect neutron star structure, so QCD symmetry patterns show up in macroscopic observables.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that neutron star structure can be computed from pure-neutron-matter equations of state; if real neutron star matter in beta equilibrium with protons, electrons, and muons gives a softer pressure, the predicted maximum mass and tidal deformability would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the bsHLS-H equation of state is correct, a pure hadronic phase can support neutron stars near $2.8\,M_\odot$, so the observed massive pulsars and events like GW190814 need not imply a quark-matter phase transition.
  • The predicted symmetry energy is stiff at subsaturation densities and soft near $2n_0$, allowing simultaneous consistency with the $^{208}$Pb neutron-skin measurement and the GW170817 tidal-deformability constraint without introducing a $\delta$ meson.
  • The kink in the incompressibility produces a peak in the sound velocity around $(1{-}2)n_0$, a signature that future heavy-ion collision experiments could test.
  • Neutron star mass-radius relations and tidal deformabilities are sensitive to $\beta'$ and to the in-medium flow of $\langle\chi\rangle^*$, making astrophysical observations a probe of the symmetry pattern of the effective theory.
  • The favored parameter set has $\beta'\simeq1.15$ and $r\simeq0.19$, consistent with pion-nucleus bound-state data and, for $f_\chi\simeq3f_\pi$, with a dilaton mass $m_\sigma\simeq850$ MeV.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's neutron star results use a pure-neutron-matter equation of state; switching to beta-equilibrated $npe\mu$ matter would lower the pressure, so the true maximum mass for bsHLS-H is probably somewhat below the quoted $2.8\,M_\odot$.
  • The kink mechanism implies a generic, testable prediction: the sound velocity of baryonic matter should peak near $2n_0$ and then approach the conformal value $v_s^2=1/3$, which heavy-ion flow measurements could confirm or disprove.
  • By linking $\beta'$ to neutron star structure, the framework opens the possibility of using precise radius and tidal measurements to constrain the anomalous dimension of gluon operators—a microscopic QCD parameter.
  • Because the dilaton is identified with the $\sigma$ meson, the same Lagrangian could connect finite-nucleus observables, such as Gamow-Teller quenching, to the neutron star equation of state in a single unified parametrization.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies the chiral-scale effective theory bsHLS, which includes hidden local symmetry and a dilatonic scalar meson, to nuclear matter in the relativistic mean-field approximation. The free parameters are fitted to empirical saturation properties, yielding two parameter sets (bsHLS-L and bsHLS-H) that reproduce the binding energy, saturation density, symmetry energy, incompressibility, and related quantities. The authors compare the density dependence of symmetry energy and incompressibility with Walecka-type models, and then compute neutron-star mass-radius relations and tidal deformabilities from the pure-neutron-matter equations of state. They report that the bsHLS-H set produces mass-radius curves consistent with GW170817, PSR J0740+6620, and PSR J0030+0451, with a maximum mass near 2.8 solar masses, and they discuss how the scale-symmetry parameter beta-prime, Brown-Rho scaling, and a density-dependent suppression of the omega-nucleon coupling influence the results.

Significance. If the central neutron-star claims were computed for realistic beta-equilibrated matter, the paper would offer an interesting bridge between QCD scale symmetry and the equation of state of dense matter, with the advantage of a compact Lagrangian and a clear comparison against traditional RMF models. The manuscript is transparent in displaying its parameter sets and nuclear-matter observables, and it explicitly examines how symmetry-pattern choices affect macroscopic neutron-star properties. However, because the neutron-star section uses pure neutron matter and because part of the parameter selection occurs after comparison with the same observational constraints, the predictive content of the abstract is currently weaker than claimed. The significance would be substantially improved by recomputing the astrophysical results for beta-equilibrated npe-mu matter and by reframing the parameter choices as calibration rather than prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.B, Fig. 2, Table IV] The mass-radius relations and tidal deformabilities are computed, as stated in Section III.B, using the equations of state for pure neutron matter (PNM). Neutron-star matter must satisfy charge neutrality and beta equilibrium and contains protons, electrons, and muons; at fixed baryon density its pressure is lower than that of PNM because the proton fraction is nonzero and the symmetry-energy contribution (1-2x)^2 E_sym(n) is reduced. The reported maximum mass near 2.8 solar masses and the tidal deformability Lambda_1.4 = 910 for bsHLS-H are therefore not direct predictions for realistic neutron stars. The authors should recompute the TOV solutions for beta-equilibrated npe-mu matter, including leptons, and compare those results with GW170817 and pulsar constraints. This is essential support for the abstract's claim that the predicted neutron-star structures fall within the observational constraints.
  2. [III.C, Tables II and V] The parameter set bsHLS-H is retained after comparing the computed mass-radius curves with the same neutron-star observations used for the final claims, and the additional suppression factor R in the effective omega-nucleon coupling is introduced in Section III.C specifically to restore the desired behavior of the scale-symmetry order parameter <chi> and to maintain agreement with those constraints. As a result, a portion of the claimed consistency is a postdiction rather than an independent prediction. The authors should either present this procedure as explicit model calibration with out-of-sample validation, or soften the predictive language in the abstract and conclusion.
  3. [Throughout, Table I and Fig. 2] No uncertainties are propagated from the fitted parameters to the equation of state or to the neutron-star observables. Table I lists empirical ranges for nuclear-matter quantities, but the mass-radius curves and tidal deformabilities are presented as single curves without error bands. The statement that the results 'fall within' observational constraints is therefore qualitative. The authors should provide sensitivity estimates or a propagation of the parameter uncertainties, particularly for M_max and Lambda_1.4.
  4. [Table IV, Section III.B] The reported Lambda_1.4 = 910 for bsHLS-H lies above the commonly quoted 90% upper bound near 580 from the GW170817 tidal-deformability analysis, so the text's statement that only bsHLS-H and FSU-delta6.7 are 'close to the constraints of GW170817' should be made more precise. The authors should state explicitly which GW170817 constraint (tidal deformability versus the mass-radius likelihood) is being used when claiming consistency, especially in the abstract.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The second Fermi-integral term appears to use k_p twice; it should presumably read f(k_p/(m_N^* Phi)) + f(k_n/(m_N^* Phi)).
  2. [Abstract and Section III.B] The abstract states that the maximum mass can reach about 3 solar masses, while the text reports M_max ~ 2.8 solar masses for bsHLS-H. These numbers should be harmonized.
  3. [Eqs. (9) and (10)] The functions F and f are used without explicit definitions in the main text; they should be defined before first use.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption and surrounding text] There is a typo in the figure/panel heading: 'Imcompressibilities' should be 'Incompressibilities'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the neutron-star EOS is a genuine output of a parameterized RMF model fitted to saturation properties, and the comparison to neutron-star observations is an external benchmark.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) construct bsHLS Lagrangian from HLS and scale symmetry; (ii) impose LOSS and B-R scaling with a free parameter r; (iii) solve the RMF equations of motion to obtain the energy density Eq. (13); (iv) fit the free parameters to nuclear-matter saturation properties in Table I; (v) use the resulting EOS in the TOV equation to obtain M-R relations and tidal deformabilities. Steps (iv) and (v) involve separated observables: saturation properties (n0, e0, K0, Esym, L, J0) are inputs, while Mmax, radius, and Lambda_1.4 are outputs. The paper does select the bsHLS-H parameter set after comparing with GW170817 and pulsar constraints, but this is discrete model selection among parameter sets that already reproduce the saturation inputs, not a re-fitting of the predicted M-R curve to the target data. The choice beta' = 1.15 is also anchored to prior work and to the model's own saturation fit, and the kink and <chi>* behavior are computed in this paper rather than imported as the conclusion. Self-citations to Refs. [6,28,31,33,43,59] exist but serve as context and motivation, not as the load-bearing derivation. The pure-neutron-matter approximation in Sec. III B is a modeling-accuracy concern because it omits beta equilibrium and leptons, but it is not circular: it changes the external mapping from EOS to star without making the prediction identical to the fitted input. No circular step meets the standard of Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced by this paper; the dilaton is borrowed from prior literature as an existing degree of freedom. The central claim rests on eight fitted parameters and five domain assumptions, including the pure neutron matter approximation.

free parameters (8)
  • Mσ = mσ fχ = 1.05e5 (bsHLS-L), 2.30e5 (bsHLS-H) MeV^2
    Combination controlling the dilaton potential via the saddle point conditions; fit to saturation properties.
  • β' = 0.395 (bsHLS-L), 1.15 (bsHLS-H)
    Anomalous dimension of gluon operator; fit to nuclear data and later linked to pseudo-conformal behavior.
  • r = 0.161 (bsHLS-L), 0.191 (bsHLS-H)
    Density-dependence parameter in Phi* = 1/(1 + r n/n0) for Brown-Rho scaling; fit to nuclear data.
  • gωNN = 11.5 (bsHLS-L), 11.0 (bsHLS-H)
    Vector coupling; fit to saturation properties.
  • gρNN = 3.78 (bsHLS-L), 4.17 (bsHLS-H)
    Isovector vector coupling; influences symmetry energy.
  • gSSBωNN = 16.3 (bsHLS-L), 8.85 (bsHLS-H)
    Scale-symmetry-breaking coupling of omega to nucleons; fit to data.
  • gSSBρNN = 9.45 (bsHLS-L), 4.85 (bsHLS-H)
    Scale-symmetry-breaking coupling of rho; fit to data.
  • R = 0.02 (bsHLS-HS)
    Extra suppression factor for gωNN introduced in Sec. III C to recover the expected ⟨χ⟩ behavior; not in the original parameter count.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption QCD has a nonperturbative infrared fixed point, and the lightest scalar meson is the corresponding Nambu-Goldstone dilaton of scale symmetry.
    Sec. I, citing Crewther and Tunstall Refs. [21,22]; this is the basis for including the dilatonic scalar meson. It is an assumption about QCD at low energies, not proven here.
  • domain assumption The relativistic mean field approximation is valid for the bsHLS Lagrangian in dense matter.
    Sec. II; meson fields are replaced by expectation values. Standard but uncontrolled at densities of several n0.
  • domain assumption Trace anomaly effects enter only through the dilaton potential (LOSS), with γ_m = 1 and h_i = 1.
    Sec. II, after Eq. (2), citing Ref. [44]; the 'leading order scale symmetry' approximation sets the form of the Lagrangian.
  • domain assumption In-medium masses follow Brown-Rho scaling with Phi* = 1/(1 + r n/n0).
    Sec. II, Eq. (11); this intrinsic density dependence is fit with r and is essential to the density behavior of the equation of state.
  • domain assumption Neutron star matter can be represented by the pure neutron matter equation of state.
    Sec. III B, 'using the EOSs discussed above for pure neutron matter (PNM)'; no beta equilibrium, charge neutrality, or leptons are included, which can significantly alter the mass-radius relation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nuclear matter properties from chiral-scale effective theory including a dilatonic scalar meson." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UQM5UAC6

@misc{pith2026241219023,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nuclear matter properties from chiral-scale effective theory including a dilatonic scalar meson},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UQM5UAC6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19023}
}
abstract

Chiral effective theory has become a powerful tool for studying the low-energy properties of QCD. In this work, we apply an extended chiral effective theory -- chiral-scale effective theory -- including a dilatonic scalar meson to study nuclear matter and find that the properties around saturation density can be well reproduced. Compared to the traditionally used Walecka-type models in nuclear matter studies, our approach improves the behavior of symmetry energy and the incompressibility coefficient in describing empirical data without introducing additional freedoms. Moreover, the predicted neutron star structures fall within the constraints of GW170817, PSR J0740+6620, and PSR J0030+0451, while the maximum neutron star mass can reach about $~3M_{\odot}$ with a pure hadronic phase. Additionally, we find that symmetry patterns of the effective theory significantly impact neutron star structures. %In chiral-scale effective theory, effective operators are well organized by chiral-scale orders and freedoms induced by QCD symmetry patterns. We believe that introducing this type of theory into nuclear matter studies can lead to a deeper understanding of QCD, nuclear matter, and compact astrophysical objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19023 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Incompressibility, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The M-R relations from bsHLS and Walecka-type models. The constraints are estimated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. NS structure results with/without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. NM property results with/without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Subsurface Vacancy Engineering Enables Atomically Clean and Oxidation-Resistant Copper Interfaces for Anode-Free Lithium Metal Batteries

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The abstract and the body of this preprint are entirely different papers, leaving the headline battery claim unsubstantiated.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    1986

  2. [2]

    G. E. Brown and M. Rho, Phys. Rept. 363, 85 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0103102

    arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    Fukushima and T

    K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, Rept. Prog. Phys. 74, 014001 (2011), arXiv:1005.4814 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rept. 621, 127 (2016), arXiv:1512.07820 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    Ma and M

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

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Brandes and W

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

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Holinde and R

    K. Holinde and R. Machleidt, Nucl. Phys. A 247, 495 (1975)

    work page 1975

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Erkelenz, Phys

    K. Erkelenz, Phys. Rept. 13, 191 (1974)

    1974

  2. [10]

    M. M. Nagels, T. A. Rijken, and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. D 17, 768 (1978)

    1978

  3. [11]

    Machleidt, Adv

    R. Machleidt, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 19, 189 (1989)

    1989

  4. [12]

    J. D. Walecka, Annals Phys. 83, 491 (1974)

    1974

  5. [13]

    R. B. Wiringa, V. Fiks, and A. Fabrocini, Phys. Rev. C 38, 1010 (1988)

    1988

  6. [14]

    B. Gao, T. Minamikawa, T. Kojo, and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. C 106, 065205 (2022), arXiv:2207.05970 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gao and M

    B. Gao and M. Harada, (2024), arXiv:2410.16649 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Weinberg, Physica A 96, 327 (1979)

    S. Weinberg, Physica A 96, 327 (1979)

    1979

  9. [17]

    Weinberg, Nucl

    S. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. B 363, 3 (1991). 18

    1991

  10. [18]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Kugo, S. Uehara, K. Yamawaki, and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1215 (1985)

    1985

  11. [19]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Kugo, and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rept. 164, 217 (1988)

    1988

  12. [20]

    Harada and K

    M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rept. 381, 1 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0302103

    2003 arXiv

  13. [21]

    R. J. Crewther and L. C. Tunstall, Phys. Rev. D 91, 034016 (2015), arXiv:1312.3319 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Cat` a, R

    O. Cat` a, R. J. Crewther, and L. C. Tunstall, Phys. Rev. D 100, 095007 (2019), arXiv:1803.08513 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    H. K. Lee, W.-G. Paeng, and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. D 92, 125033 (2015), arXiv:1504.00908 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Li, Y.-L

    Y.-L. Li, Y.-L. Ma, and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. D 95, 114011 (2017), arXiv:1609.07014 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    S. K. Bogner, T. T. S. Kuo, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rept. 386, 1 (2003), arXiv:nucl- th/0305035

    2003

  18. [26]

    J. W. Holt, G. E. Brown, J. D. Holt, and T. T. S. Kuo, Nucl. Phys. A 785, 322 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0610069

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ma and M

    Y.-L. Ma and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. D 99, 014034 (2019), arXiv:1810.06062 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ma and M

    Y.-L. Ma and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. D 100, 114003 (2019), arXiv:1811.07071 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Y.-L. Ma, H. K. Lee, W.-G. Paeng, and M. Rho, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 62, 112011 (2019), arXiv:1804.00305 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Lubos et al

    D. Lubos et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 222502 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Ma and M

    Y.-L. Ma and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 142501 (2020), arXiv:2002.03310 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ma and M

    Y.-L. Ma and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. D 97, 094017 (2018), arXiv:1612.04079 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Shao and Y.-L

    L.-Q. Shao and Y.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 106, 014014 (2022), arXiv:2202.09957 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Lee, B.-Y

    H.-J. Lee, B.-Y. Park, M. Rho, and V. Vento, Nucl. Phys. A 726, 69 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0304066

    2003

  27. [35]

    B.-Y. Park, M. Rho, and V. Vento, Nucl. Phys. A 807, 28 (2008), arXiv:0801.1374 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  28. [36]

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

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    B. T. Reed, F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 172503 (2021), arXiv:2101.03193 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Li, B.-J

    F. Li, B.-J. Cai, Y. Zhou, W.-Z. Jiang, and L.-W. Chen, Astrophys. J. 929, 183 (2022), arXiv:2202.08705 [nucl-th]. 19

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Ma and Y.-L

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

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 9, 011001 (2019), arXiv:1805.11579 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    M. C. Miller et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L28 (2021), arXiv:2105.06979 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    T. E. Riley et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L27 (2021), arXiv:2105.06980 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Guo, J.-Y

    L.-J. Guo, J.-Y. Xiong, Y. Ma, and Y.-L. Ma, Astrophys. J. 965, 47 (2024), arXiv:2309.11227 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Li and Y.-L

    Y.-L. Li and Y.-L. Ma, arXiv (2017), arXiv:1710.02839 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    G. E. Brown and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2720 (1991)

    1991

  38. [46]

    Kienle and T

    P. Kienle and T. Yamazaki, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 52, 85 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    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

  41. [49]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Lourenco, J. S. Sa Martins, A. Delfino, J. R. Stone, and P. D. Stevenson, Phys. Rev. C 85, 035201 (2012), arXiv:1202.3902 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Chen, Phys

    L.-W. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 83, 044308 (2011), arXiv:1101.5217 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  43. [51]

    M. Liu, N. Wang, Z.-X. Li, and F.-S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 82, 064306 (2010), arXiv:1011.3865 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  44. [52]

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

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    B.-A. Li, P. G. Krastev, D.-H. Wen, and N.-B. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 117 (2019), arXiv:1905.13175 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Zhang and L.-W

    Z. Zhang and L.-W. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 90, 064317 (2014), arXiv:1407.8054 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Farine, J

    M. Farine, J. M. Pearson, and F. Tondeur, Nucl. Phys. A 615, 135 (1997)

    1997

  48. [56]

    C. J. Horowitz and B. D. Serot, Nucl. Phys. A 368, 503 (1981)

    1981

  49. [57]

    P. G. Reinhard, M. Rufa, J. Maruhn, W. Greiner, and J. Friedrich, Z. Phys. A 323, 13 (1986)

    1986

  50. [58]

    Sugahara and H

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

    1994

  51. [59]

    Peak of sound velocity, scale symmetry and nuclear force in baryonic matter,

    L.-Q. Zhang, Y. Ma, and Y.-L. Ma, “Peak of sound velocity, scale symmetry and nuclear force in baryonic matter,” (2024), arXiv:2410.04142 [nucl-th]

    2024

  52. [60]

    T. E. Riley et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L21 (2019), arXiv:1912.05702 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

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

    1939

  54. [62]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55, 364 (1939). 20

    1939

  55. [63]

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

    1971

  56. [64]

    W. D. Arnett and R. L. Bowers, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 33, 415 (1977)

    1977

  57. [65]

    Postnikov, M

    S. Postnikov, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D 82, 024016 (2010), arXiv:1004.5098 [astro-ph.SR]

    2010 arXiv

  58. [66]

    ¨Ozel and P

    F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 54, 401 (2016), arXiv:1603.02698 [astro- ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Fan, M.-Z

    Y.-Z. Fan, M.-Z. Han, J.-L. Jiang, D.-S. Shao, and S.-P. Tang, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043052 (2024), arXiv:2309.12644 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    C. D. Bailyn, R. K. Jain, P. Coppi, and J. A. Orosz, Astrophys. J. 499, 367 (1998), arXiv:astro- ph/9708032

    1998

  61. [69]

    W. M. Farr, N. Sravan, A. Cantrell, L. Kreidberg, C. D. Bailyn, I. Mandel, and V. Kalogera, Astrophys. J. 741, 103 (2011), arXiv:1011.1459 [astro-ph.GA]

    2011 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    S. O. Backman, G. E. Brown, and J. A. Niskanen, Phys. Rept. 124, 1 (1985)

    1985

  64. [72]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B 730, 99 (2014), arXiv:1309.5258 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Paeng, H

    W.-G. Paeng, H. K. Lee, M. Rho, and C. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D 88, 105019 (2013), arXiv:1303.2898 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.