Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Neutron Star Properties and Femtoscopic Constraints

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Femtoscopy-tuned and lattice-QCD hyperon interactions leave neutron-star maximum masses at 1.3–1.4 solar masses, so the hyperon puzzle persists if only two-body forces act.

desk verdict Solid, honest BHF propagation of modern femtoscopic and lattice hyperon interactions to neutron stars; confirms the 1.3–1.4 solar mass ceiling and is worth refereeing, with the 3NF caveat kept in proportion. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12729 v2 pith:ZRV5O7M5 submitted 2024-12-17 nucl-th astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRhep-ph

I. Vidana , V. Mantovani Sarti , J. Haidenbauer , D. L. Mihaylov , L. Fabbietti This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRhep-ph PACS 97.60.Jd13.75.Ev
keywords neutronstarhyperonpuzzleequationofstateBrueckner–Hartree–Fockhyperon-nucleoninteractionfemtoscopytidaldeformabilitystrangeness
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 tries to establish whether modern, data-driven hyperon interactions still make neutron stars too soft to reach two solar masses. Using a chiral hyperon-nucleon force tuned to femtoscopic Lambda-proton correlations and lattice-QCD Lambda-Lambda and Xi-N potentials that reproduce femtoscopic data, it computes hypernuclear equations of state and derives neutron-star structure. The central finding is that, no matter how stiff or soft the nucleonic part is, the maximum mass with S=-1 and S=-2 hyperons is 1.3–1.4 solar masses. That is far below the observed roughly two-solar-mass pulsars, so the hyperon puzzle persists if only two-body hyperon-nucleon and hyperon-hyperon interactions are at work. Hyperonic tidal deformabilities agree with the GW170817 constraint only in the 1.1–1.3 solar-mass range.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Brueckner–Hartree–Fock (BHF) many-body method in the strange sector: coupled-channel Bethe–Goldstone equations produce in-medium G-matrices for the NN, Lambda-N–Sigma-N, and Lambda-Lambda–Xi-N systems, and self-consistent single-particle potentials are iterated until convergence. The resulting energy density is combined with a phenomenological three-nucleon term, Eq. (5), chosen to reproduce saturation binding and two values of the nuclear incompressibility, and beta-equilibrium with leptons fixes the composition. The Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equations then give the mass–radius relation and a Love-number equation gives the tidal deformability.

What would settle it

Repeat the identical Brueckner–Hartree–Fock calculation with a microscopically derived three-nucleon force replacing the fitted phenomenological term of Eq. (5); if the hyperonic maximum mass rises above roughly 1.4 solar masses, the reported ceiling is an artifact of the nucleonic parametrization rather than a consequence of the two-body hyperonic interactions. An observed neutron star above 1.4 solar masses with confirmed hyperons in its interior would also falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper shows that the currently best-constrained two-body hyperonic interactions produce a maximum neutron-star mass of 1.3–1.4 solar masses once hyperons appear. This value is almost independent of the nucleonic equation of state: the onset of Lambda, Sigma-minus, and Xi-minus hyperons triggers compensating softening mechanisms that wash out the nucleonic uncertainty. Consequently none of the considered hyperonic equations of state reproduces the observed roughly two-solar-mass pulsars, and the paper concludes that two-body-only hyperonic interactions leave the hyperon puzzle unsolved. The same equations of state predict tidal deformabilities compatible with GW170817 only up to about 1.3 solar masses, which is exactly the mass range the lower maximum mass allows.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a Brueckner–Hartree–Fock calculation using only two-body hyperon-nucleon and hyperon-hyperon forces, plus a fitted three-nucleon term, describes dense matter up to the central density of the maximum-mass star; if hyperonic three-body forces supply extra repulsion, the 1.3–1.4 solar-mass ceiling would rise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adding strangeness through the studied two-body interactions softens the equation of state and lowers the maximum mass to 1.3–1.4 solar masses.
  • The maximum mass of hyperonic stars is nearly independent of the stiffness of the nucleonic equation of state, collapsing a wide spread in pure-nucleonic predictions.
  • None of the considered hyperonic equations of state can reproduce the observed roughly two-solar-mass pulsars; only pure nucleonic equations of state reach those masses.
  • Hyperonic stars have smaller radii and tidal deformabilities at a given mass than pure nucleonic stars, so hyperonic predictions match the GW170817 tidal constraint only below about 1.3 solar masses.
  • Because the maximum mass stays low, the hyperon puzzle remains open: some additional repulsion beyond two-body hyperonic forces is required.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If hyperonic three-body forces supply the missing repulsion, their required strength can be quantified by demanding that the maximum mass reach the observed two-solar-mass scale, turning the puzzle into a concrete target for three-body-force calculations.
  • Since the paper finds the maximum mass insensitive to nucleonic stiffness, radius and tidal-deformability measurements are likely to discriminate hyperonic from purely nucleonic equations of state better than mass measurements alone.
  • The paper notes in passing that P-wave hyperon-nucleon scattering is unconstrained; tightening that input could widen the uncertainty bands, so the 1.3–1.4 solar-mass peak should be read with that caveat.
  • Future precise tidal-deformability or radius measurements on stars below 1.4 solar masses could distinguish among the attractive and repulsive variants of the hyperon interactions explored here.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs the equation of state (EoS) of hypernuclear matter in the Brueckner–Hartree–Fock approach using the NLO19 chiral ΛN–ΣN interaction and its variants tuned to ALICE Λp femtoscopic data, together with HAL QCD lattice potentials for the ΛΛ and ΞN channels that reproduce ΛΛ and Ξ−p correlations. The nucleonic part uses the Argonne v18 potential plus a phenomenological density- and isospin-dependent three-nucleon-force term fitted to the saturation binding energy and to two values of the incompressibility (K0 = 160 and 270 MeV). Beta-equilibrated compositions, EoSs, mass–radius relations, and tidal deformabilities are obtained by solving the TOV equations. The central result is that the maximum mass of neutron stars containing S = −1 and S = −2 hyperons is about 1.3–1.4 M⊙, almost independent of the nucleonic EoS, so the hyperon puzzle persists if only two-body hyperon–nucleon and hyperon–hyperon interactions are included. The hyperonic EoSs satisfy the GW170817 tidal-deformability constraint only in the mass range 1.1–1.3 M⊙.

Significance. The result is significant because it uses state-of-the-art hyperon interactions constrained by femtoscopy and lattice QCD, rather than older phenomenological potentials, and still finds a maximum mass incompatible with the observed ~2 M⊙ pulsars. This sharpens the hyperon puzzle and gives a concrete falsifiable prediction: if the two-body interactions used here are correct, the observed high-mass pulsars cannot contain hyperons without additional repulsive many-body forces. The paper is also useful as a detailed propagation of interaction uncertainties (Λp scattering-length variations and regulator cutoff dependence) into neutron-star observables. The BHF equations are presented explicitly, and the construction of the uncertainty bands is explained. The main limitations—the post-hoc inclusion of the nucleonic three-nucleon force and the neglect of P-wave YN uncertainty—are acknowledged by the authors, but they are load-bearing for the quantitative claim and need further scrutiny.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (5)] The three-nucleon force is added only to the energy density after the G-matrix and single-particle potentials are computed, rather than being inserted into the Bethe–Goldstone equation as an effective density-dependent two-body force, as in Refs. [49–51]. Because the maximum mass is the central quantitative claim, this non-self-consistent treatment could shift the quoted 1.3–1.4 M⊙ range; the authors should estimate the systematic effect by comparing with the standard BHF implementation of Refs. [49–51], or at least provide a quantitative argument that the post-hoc addition does not affect the hyperonic maximum mass. The two K0 values only vary the coefficients a and b in Eq. (5); they do not test the form of the 3NF or the self-consistency of its inclusion.
  2. [Sec. 4, final paragraph] The paper explicitly states that the uncertainty from the ΛN interaction in P- and higher partial waves is not considered, although it could be about ±3 MeV in the Λ single-particle potential at saturation density. Since the paper's stated aim is to propagate uncertainties from the hyperon interactions to neutron-star properties, omitting this known source makes the displayed bands incomplete; the authors should either include an estimate of its effect on the EoS and on M_max or justify why it cannot affect the central conclusion.
  3. [Sec. 4, Fig. 3] The claim that the maximum mass is 'quite insensitive to the nucleonic part of the EoS' is based on only two K0 values with the same phenomenological 3NF form. The isospin dependence (1+β^2) in Eq. (5) is an ad hoc ansatz; a different symmetry-energy behavior of the 3NF could change radii and tidal deformabilities, and possibly the maximum mass. This should be discussed or tested with an alternative 3NF parametrization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1] The x-axis label in all four panels appears garbled ('0 ρ/ρ4'); please fix the typography.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says 'panels (e) and (d)' where it should say 'panels (e) and (f)'.
  3. [Ref. [44]] The reference 'Primate communication' should be 'private communication'.
  4. [Sec. 5] The phrase 'interior of neutrons of neutron stars' should be 'interior of neutron stars'.
  5. [Sec. 4 and Sec. 5] The statement that different ΛΛ and ΛΛ–ΞN parameterizations lead to identical results appears twice; consider consolidating to avoid redundancy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the maximum-mass prediction is obtained from BHF calculations using hyperon interactions fixed by femtoscopy and lattice QCD, with no parameter tuned to neutron star observables.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the maximum mass of neutron stars containing S=-1 and S=-2 hyperons is 1.3-1.4 Msun (Section 4, Fig. 3). This is a genuine prediction: the YN interaction variants are fixed by a combined analysis of Lambda-p scattering data and ALICE femtoscopic correlation functions (Ref. [22], used in Sect. 2), and the Lambda-Lambda and Xi-N interactions are taken from HAL QCD lattice simulations. Neither set of inputs is adjusted to reproduce neutron star masses or radii. The 3NF term in Eq. (5) has coefficients fitted to the saturation binding energy E0 = -16 MeV and the incompressibility K0, which are external nuclear-matter benchmarks, not neutron star observables. The result is then compared with the observed 2 Msun pulsars and found to fall short, so the claim is falsifiable and not forced by construction. The self-citation of Ref. [22] is used only to define the interaction variants that serve as input; it does not import the neutron-star conclusion itself. The paper's own caveats, such as the non-self-consistent addition of the 3NF in Eq. (5) after the G-matrix calculation, the omission of hyperonic three-body forces, and the unconstrained P-wave YN interaction, are limitations on robustness and accuracy, not evidence of circularity. No step in the derivation reduces to the target result, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of inputs: two-body hyperon interactions constrained by femtoscopy and lattice QCD, the BHF many-body method, a phenomenological three-nucleon force fitted to saturation properties, and the assumption that hyperonic three-body forces are negligible. None of these inputs are fitted to the target neutron star observables, which keeps the result non-circular, but each is a source of systematic uncertainty.

free parameters (9)
  • 3NF coefficient a (K0=160) = -15.22 MeV fm^3
    Fitted to reproduce binding energy E0=-16 MeV and incompressibility K0=160 MeV at saturation density in Eq. (5).
  • 3NF coefficient b (K0=160) = 21.70 MeV fm^6
    Same fit as above.
  • 3NF coefficient a (K0=270) = -53.42 MeV fm^3
    Fitted to reproduce E0=-16 MeV and K0=270 MeV.
  • 3NF coefficient b (K0=270) = 260.42 MeV fm^6
    Same fit.
  • Nuclear incompressibility K0 scenarios = 160 and 270 MeV
    Chosen as the two extreme values compatible with current experimental uncertainties (Ref [52]) to bracket the stiffness of the nucleonic EoS.
  • YN scattering length variants (set I) = f0=2.50 fm fixed; f1=1.32 to 1.55 fm
    Variants of the NLO19 potential with LECs readjusted to cover the 1-sigma region from the femtoscopic Lambda p analysis of Ref [22].
  • YN cutoff variants (set II) = cutoffs 500, 550, 650 MeV
    LECs readjusted to reproduce NLO19(600) scattering lengths, used to estimate theoretical uncertainty from cutoff dependence.
  • XiN potential parameterizations = two unspecified sets out of 71 HAL QCD potentials
    Selected as the most and least attractive XiN interactions compatible with ALICE Xi-p femtoscopic data; exact sets from private communication (Ref [44]).
  • Lambda-Lambda and Lambda-Lambda-XiN parameter set = t/a=11 set (Tables 2 and 3 of Ref [23])
    Selected after verifying other t/a values give nearly identical results within precision (footnote 2).
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption BHF theory with continuous choice provides a convergent many-body expansion; three-hole line contributions are minimized
    Invoked in Section 3 via Refs [47,48]; standard in the field but not proven in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The phenomenological 3NF term of Eq. (5) with isospin dependence (1+beta^2) adequately represents many-nucleon forces
    The functional form and the symmetry-energy content are chosen, not derived; coefficients fitted to saturation properties.
  • domain assumption Only two-body YN and YY interactions are relevant; hyperonic three-body forces are negligible for the stated claim
    Explicit scope of the paper; stated in abstract and conclusions. If YNN forces are repulsive, the maximum mass would increase.
  • domain assumption The NLO19 YN potential and its variants describe the S=-1 interaction at the densities and momenta of neutron star matter
    Extrapolation from low-energy scattering and femtoscopy data to the Fermi momenta in neutron star cores; no direct data at these densities.
  • domain assumption The HAL QCD potentials describe the S=-2 interaction; neglecting LambdaSigma and SigmaSigma couplings is acceptable
    Adopted from Ref [23]; the paper states this coupling is ignored.
  • standard math Beta equilibrium and charge neutrality determine the composition
    Standard weak equilibrium conditions stated in Section 3.
  • standard math TOV equations describe static neutron star structure
    Standard general relativity; cited Refs [56,57].
  • domain assumption Cutoff variation provides a lower bound on the theoretical uncertainty
    The paper itself states this in Section 2, so the quoted bands are a lower bound.
  • domain assumption K0=160 and 270 MeV bracket the true nuclear incompressibility
    Based on heavy-ion constraints (Ref [52]); if the true K0 is outside this range, the nucleonic baseline changes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutron Star Properties and Femtoscopic Constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZRV5O7M5

@misc{pith2026241212729,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutron Star Properties and Femtoscopic Constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZRV5O7M5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12729}
}
abstract

We construct the equation of state of hypernuclear matter and study the structure of neutron stars employing a chiral hyperon-nucleon interaction of the J\"{u}lich--Bonn group tuned to femtoscopic $\Lambda p$ data of the ALICE Collaboration, and $\Lambda\Lambda$ and $\Xi$N interactions determined from lattice QCD calculations by the HAL QCD Collaboration that reproduce the femtoscopic $\Lambda\Lambda$ and $\Xi^-p$ data. We employ the ab-initio microscopic Brueckner--Hartree--Fock theory extended to the strange baryon sector. A special focus is put on the uncertainties of the hyperon interactions and how they are effectively propagated to the composition, equation of state, mass-radius relation and tidal deformability of neutron stars. To such end, we consider the uncertainty due to the experimental error of the femtoscopic $\Lambda p$ data used to fix the chiral hyperon-nucleon interaction and the theoretical uncertainty, estimated from the residual cut-off dependence of this interaction. We find that the final maximum mass of a neutron star with hyperons is in the range $1.3-1.4$ $M_\odot$, in agreement with previous works. The hyperon puzzle, therefore, remains still an open issue if only two-body hyperon-nucleon and hyperon-hyperon interactions are considered. Predictions for the tidal deformability of neutron stars with hyperons are found to be in agreement with the observational constraints from the gravitational wave event GW170817 in the mass range $1.1-1.3$ $M_\odot$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12729 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color online). Composition of β-stable neutron star matter including nucleons, Λ, Σ − and Ξ − baryons. For the S = −1 YN interaction we use the NLO19 potential [24] and variants established in Ref. [22], while for the S = −2, the ΛΛ and ΞN potentials from the HAL QCD Collaboration are used, see text in Sect. 4. The upper (lower) panels (a) and (b) ((c) and (d)) show the results when a soft (stiff) nucleonic EoS wit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Color online). Particle chemical potentials as a function of the density (expressed in units of ρ0) in β-stable neutron star matter including nucleons, Λ, Σ − and Ξ − baryons when a soft nucleonic EoS with K0 = 160 MeV is considered (panel (a)) and when a scenario with a stiff nucleonic EoS with K0 = 270 MeV is assumed (panel (b)). Results are shown using the chiral YN potential NLO19 with a cutoff of 600 MeV, and … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Color online). Panels (a) and (b): EoS of β-stable neutron star matter including nucleons, Λ, Σ − and Ξ − baryons. The EoS of nucleonic matter in β-equilibrium predicted for K0 = 160 MeV (orange line) and K0 = 270 MeV (red line) are shown for comparison. For the S = −1 YN interaction we use the NLO19 potential [24] and variants established in Ref. [22], while for the interactions in the S = −2 channels ΛΛ and ΞN th… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. In-medium $\Lambda N$ interactions with leading order covariant chiral hyperon/nucleon-nucleon forces

    nucl-th 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock calculation with leading-order covariant chiral hyperon-nucleon and nucleon-nucleon forces reproduces the empirical Lambda single-particle potential in nuclear matter.

  2. Toward a Unified Understanding of the Dense Matter Equation of State

    nucl-th 2025-11 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review of three Bayesian/computational frameworks for combining heavy-ion and astrophysical constraints on the dense-matter equation of state, plus a proposed unified integration workflow.

  3. Nuclear matter equation of state and astrophysics

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional

    A review of multimessenger constraints on the neutron-star equation of state, arguing composition remains undetermined and advocating a multidimensional EoS framework and the author-affiliated MUSES software.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Strangeness nuclear physics: a critical review on selected topics

    E. Botta, T. Bressani, and G. Garbarino, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 41 (2012). arXiv:1203.5707 [nucl-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

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

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Lenske, M

    H. Lenske, M. Dhar, T. Gaitanos, and X. Cao, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 98, 119 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Rezzolla, P

    L. Rezzolla, P. Pizzochero, D. I. Jones, N. Rea, and I. Vida ˜na, eds., The Physics and Astrophysics of Neutron Stars, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 457 (Springer, 2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Baldo, Int

    M. Baldo, Int. Rev. Nucl. Phys. 8, 1 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Chatterjee and I

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

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Vida ˜na, Proc

    I. Vida ˜na, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 474, 0145 (2018), arXiv:1803.00504 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck, The Nuclear Many-Body Problem, Physics and astronomy online library (Springer, 2004)

    work page 2004

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Petschauer, N

    S. Petschauer, N. Kaiser, J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C93, 014001 (2016), arXiv:1511.02095 [nucl- th]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Haidenbauer, U

    J. Haidenbauer, U. G. Meißner, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 121 (2017), arXiv:1612.03758 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kohno, Phys

    M. Kohno, Phys. Rev. C 97, 035206 (2018), arXiv:1802.05388 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Logoteta, I

    D. Logoteta, I. Vida ˜na, and I. Bombaci, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 207 (2019), arXiv:1906.11722 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gerstung, N

    D. Gerstung, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 175 (2020), arXiv:2001.10563 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    H. Tong, S. Elhatisari, and U.-G. Meißner, (2024), arXiv:2405.01887 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Demorest, T

    P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, and J. Hessels, Nature 467, 1081 (2010), arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Antoniadis et al., Science 340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

    J. Antoniadis et al., Science 340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  9. [17]

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

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Nature 588, 232 (2020), [Erratum: Nature 590, E13 (2021)], arXiv:2005.11495 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 833, 137272 (2022), arXiv:2104.04427 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 797, 134822 (2019), arXiv:1905.07209 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 145 (2023), arXiv:2206.03344 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D. L. Mihaylov, J. Haidenbauer, and V . Mantovani Sarti, Phys. Lett. B 850, 138550 (2024), arXiv:2312.16970 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Sasaki et al

    K. Sasaki et al. (HAL QCD), Nucl. Phys. A 998, 121737 (2020), arXiv:1912.08630 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Haidenbauer, U.-G

    J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Nogga, Eur. Phys. J. A56, 91 (2020), arXiv:1906.11681 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Schulze, A

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

    1995

  18. [26]

    Schulze, M

    H.-J. Schulze, M. Baldo, U. Lombardo, J. Cugnon, and A. Leje- une, Phys. Rev. C 57, 704 (1998)

    1998

  19. [27]

    Baldo, G

    M. Baldo, G. F. Burgio, and H. J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. C 58, 3688 (1998)

    1998

  20. [28]

    Baldo, G

    M. Baldo, G. F. Burgio, and H. J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. C 61, 055801 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9912066

    2000 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Vida ˜na, A

    I. Vida ˜na, A. Polls, A. Ramos, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and V . G. J. Stoks, Phys. Rev. C 61, 025802 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9909019

    2000 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Vida ˜na, A

    I. Vida ˜na, A. Polls, A. Ramos, L. Engvik, and M. Hjorth-Jensen, Phys. Rev. C 62, 035801 (2000), arXiv:nucl- th/0004031

    2000

  23. [31]

    Schulze, A

    H.-J. Schulze, A. Polls, A. Ramos, and I. Vida ˜na, Phys. Rev. C 73, 058801 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    Schulze and T

    H.-J. Schulze and T. Rijken, Phys. Rev. C 84, 035801 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Mihaylov and J

    D. Mihaylov and J. Gonz ´alez Gonz´alez, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 590 (2023), arXiv:2305.08441 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 112002 (2019), arXiv:1904.12198 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Haidenbauer, S

    J. Haidenbauer, S. Petschauer, N. Kaiser, U.-G. Meißner, A. Nogga, and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 915, 24 (2013), arXiv:1304.5339 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Petschauer and N

    S. Petschauer and N. Kaiser, Nucl. Phys. A 916, 1 (2013), arXiv:1305.3427 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1773 (2009), arXiv:0811.1338 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U.-G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 53 (2015), arXiv:1412.0142 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. Hu, Y . Zhang, E. Epelbaum, U.-G. Meißner, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 96, 034307 (2017), arXiv:1612.05433 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    M. H. Quenouille, Jour. Roy. Statist. Soc. Series B 11, 68 (1949)

    1949

  33. [41]

    J. W. Tukey, Ann. Math. Statist. 29, 614 (1958)

    1958

  34. [42]

    R. G. Miller, Biometrika 61, 1 (1974)

    1974

  35. [43]

    Efron and G

    B. Efron and G. Gong, The American Statistician, 37, 36 (1983)

    1983

  36. [44]

    Sasaki, Primate communication

    K. Sasaki, Primate communication

  37. [45]

    Kamiya, K

    Y . Kamiya, K. Sasaki, T. Fukui, T. Hyodo, K. Morita, K. Ogata, A. Ohnishi, and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014915 (2022), arXiv:2108.09644 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    R. B. Wiringa, V . G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C 51, 38 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9408016

    1995 arXiv

  39. [47]

    H. Q. Song, M. Baldo, G. Giansiracusa, and U. Lombardo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1584 (1998)

    1998

  40. [48]

    Baldo, G

    M. Baldo, G. Giansiracusa, U. Lombardo, and H. Q. Song, Phys. Lett. B 473, 1 (2000)

    2000

  41. [49]

    B. A. Loiseau, Y . Nogami, and R. C. K., Nucl. Phys. A 165, 601 (1971), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys. A 176, 665–666 (1971)]

    1971

  42. [50]

    Grang ´e, M

    P. Grang ´e, M. Martzolff, Y . Nogami, D. W. L. Sprung, and C. K. Ross, Phys. Lett. B 60, 237 (1976)

    1976

  43. [51]

    Baldo and L

    M. Baldo and L. S. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. C 59, 682 (1999)

    1999

  44. [52]

    Le F `evre, Y

    A. Le F `evre, Y . Leifels, W. Reisdorf, J. Aichelin, and C. Hartnack, Nucl. Phys. A 945, 112 (2016), arXiv:1501.05246 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Feynman, F

    R. Feynman, F. Metropolis, and E. Teller, Phys. Rev. 75, 1561 (1949)

    1949

  46. [54]

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

    1971

  47. [55]

    J. W. Negele and D. Vautherin, Nucl. Phys. A 207, 298 (1973)

    1973

  48. [56]

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

    1939

  49. [57]

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

    1939

  50. [58]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

    T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J. 677, 1216 (2008)

    2008

  51. [59]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

    T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J. 697, 964 (2009)

    2009

  52. [60]

    Hinderer, B

    T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Land, and J. S. Read, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123016 (2010)

    2010

  53. [61]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Gendreau and Z

    K. Gendreau and Z. Arzoumanian, Nature Astronomy 1, 895 (2017). 10 I. Vida ˜na et al.: Neutron Star Properties and Femtoscopic Constraints

    2017

  55. [63]

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

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

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

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Vinciguerra et al

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

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Salmi et al., arXiv:2406.14466 [astro-ph.HE]

    T. Salmi et al., arXiv:2406.14466 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    Kumar et al., Liv

    R. Kumar et al., Liv. Rev. Rel.27, 3 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    Sammarruca, L

    F. Sammarruca, L. Coraggio, J. W. Holt, N. Itaco, R. Mach- leidt, and L. E. Marcucci, Phys. Rev. C 91, 054311 (2015), arXiv:1411.0136 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Petschauer, J

    S. Petschauer, J. Haidenbauer, N. Kaiser, U.-G. Meißner, and W. Weise, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 15 (2016), arXiv:1507.08808 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Balkin, J

    R. Balkin, J. Serra, K. Springmann, S. Stelzl, and A. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D 109, 095032 (2024), arXiv:2211.02661 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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