pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.16929 · v2 · submitted 2025-05-22 · ⚛️ nucl-th · astro-ph.HE

Properties of the neutron star crust informed by nuclear structure data

Pietro Klausner , Marco Antonelli , Francesca Gulminelli This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 01:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th astro-ph.HE
keywords neutron star crustBayesian analysisSkyrme functionalsequation of statecrustal moment of inertianuclear structureinner crustpulsar glitches
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bayesian neutron star models from nuclear data predict thicker crusts and higher crustal moments of inertia.

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

The paper conducts a Bayesian analysis of neutron star equations of state by drawing from the full multidimensional posterior distribution of parameters in Skyrme functionals that are already constrained by static and dynamic nuclear structure observables. It builds unified equations of state in which the inner crust is treated with the extended Thomas-Fermi method so that bulk, surface, spin-orbit, and effective-mass properties remain correlated. Astrophysical filters from measured neutron-star masses, the tidal deformability of GW170817, and NICER mass-radius data are then applied. The resulting models show both a larger neutron-star surface thickness and a larger crustal moment of inertia than those obtained in earlier studies.

Core claim

Starting from the full posterior distribution of nuclear-matter parameters obtained from nuclear structure data and employing the extended Thomas-Fermi method for the inner crust produces unified npeμ equations of state that satisfy mass, tidal-deformability, and radius constraints while yielding an increase in both the neutron-star surface thickness and the crustal moment of inertia relative to previous calculations.

What carries the argument

The extended Thomas-Fermi treatment of the inner crust inside a Bayesian sampling of Skyrme functionals whose parameters are drawn from the nuclear-structure posterior, thereby preserving correlations among bulk, surface, spin-orbit, and effective-mass terms.

If this is right

  • The crustal moment of inertia rises, altering predictions for the angular-momentum reservoir available to power pulsar glitches.
  • The neutron-star surface region becomes thicker than in earlier models.
  • Only those equations of state that simultaneously respect the nuclear posterior and the astrophysical constraints from GW170817 and NICER are retained.
  • Correlations among bulk, surface, and spin-orbit parameters survive the extrapolation to neutron-star densities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future precision measurements of nuclear surface properties could tighten the posterior and further shift the predicted crustal moment of inertia.
  • The same consistent Bayesian pipeline could be applied to other neutron-star observables such as cooling curves or r-mode damping times.
  • Systematic differences between glitch-inferred moments of inertia and the present predictions would test the limits of the Thomas-Fermi description at supranuclear densities.

Load-bearing premise

The posterior distribution of nuclear-matter parameters obtained at nuclear densities and asymmetries remains valid when extrapolated to the higher densities and greater isospin asymmetries of the neutron-star inner crust under the extended Thomas-Fermi approximation.

What would settle it

A measurement or glitch-based inference of the crustal moment of inertia that lies significantly below the range obtained from these models would indicate that the nuclear posterior does not hold under neutron-star crust conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16929 by Francesca Gulminelli, Marco Antonelli, Pietro Klausner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Mapping of SkmSmpl1 EoS (line) into three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Difference in energy density ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Nuclear matter parameters marginalized priors and posteriors. Bulk isoscalar (a), bulk isovector (b), surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Corner plots of the bulk (a) and surface and effective mass (b) parameters. Black lines and contours: prior. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Posterior of the CC density and pressure transition point obtained with different estimation methods. Left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Posterior distribution of the crust composition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Posterior distributions of the crustal radius (left) and moment of inertia (right) for four different NS masses, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Posterior of the ratio in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: On the left, the posteriors of the pressure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Posterior of the sound speed inside the star. The darker shades indicate the 68% confidence intervals, while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Symmetry energy posterior. The darker [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Posterior of the MR relation. The darker blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Comparison of the optimal Sly4 density profiles in the full ETF variation of ref.[ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Comparison of the cell variational parameters obtained in this work, with the ones from ref.[ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We perform a Bayesian analysis of the neutron star (NS) equation of state (EoS) based on a wide set of Skyrme functionals, derived from previous nuclear physics inferences. The novelty of this approach lies in starting from the full multidimensional posterior distribution of nuclear matter parameters, consistent with a comprehensive set of static and dynamic nuclear structure observables. We construct unified EoSs for $npe\mu$ matter, where the inner crust of the NS is treated using an extended Thomas-Fermi method, providing for the first time a fully consistent Bayesian treatment of the correlation of bulk with surface as well as with spin-orbit and effective mass parameters. We then employ a standard Bayesian framework to identify those EoSs that satisfy astrophysical constraints from NS mass measurements, the tidal deformability from GW170817, and NICER mass-radius observations. We also examine NS observables, such as the crustal moment of inertia, which is crucial in understanding pulsar glitches. Compared to previous works, we observe an increase in both the NS surface thickness and the crustal moment of inertia.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript performs a Bayesian analysis of neutron-star equations of state by propagating the full multidimensional posterior of Skyrme parameters (constrained by static and dynamic nuclear observables) through an extended Thomas-Fermi treatment of the inner crust. Unified npeμ EoSs are constructed, filtered by NS mass, GW170817 tidal deformability, and NICER mass-radius data, and used to compute crust observables; the central result is an increase in both neutron-star surface thickness and crustal moment of inertia relative to earlier studies.

Significance. If the extrapolation of the nuclear posterior to the inner-crust regime remains valid, the work supplies a statistically consistent treatment of bulk-surface-spin-orbit correlations that could tighten predictions for the crustal moment of inertia relevant to glitch modeling. The use of the complete posterior rather than point estimates is a methodological strength that improves uncertainty propagation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (extended Thomas-Fermi crust construction): the headline increase in surface thickness and crustal MOI rests on applying the nuclear posterior—derived primarily from observables near saturation density and moderate asymmetry—to the low-density (∼0.01–0.5 ρ₀), highly neutron-rich inner-crust regime. No explicit sensitivity test or additional low-density constraint is shown to confirm that the ETF surface and gradient terms remain reliable under this extrapolation; this is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Results section] Results section (comparison to previous works): the reported enhancement in crustal moment of inertia is presented without a quantitative decomposition of contributions from the Bayesian propagation versus the specific ETF functional form or the astrophysical filters; without this breakdown it is difficult to judge whether the increase is robust or an artifact of the chosen approximation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'for the first time a fully consistent Bayesian treatment' should be qualified by a brief statement of which prior Bayesian crust studies are being surpassed in scope.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions: ensure that the baseline models from earlier literature are explicitly identified so that the claimed increases can be directly traced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the recognition of the methodological strengths in using the full posterior distribution. Below we address each major comment in detail, indicating the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (extended Thomas-Fermi crust construction): the headline increase in surface thickness and crustal MOI rests on applying the nuclear posterior—derived primarily from observables near saturation density and moderate asymmetry—to the low-density (∼0.01–0.5 ρ₀), highly neutron-rich inner-crust regime. No explicit sensitivity test or additional low-density constraint is shown to confirm that the ETF surface and gradient terms remain reliable under this extrapolation; this is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that the reliability of the extrapolation is important for the robustness of our results. The Skyrme parameters in our posterior are constrained by a wide range of nuclear observables that include information on surface properties and isovector terms, which influence the low-density behavior. The extended Thomas-Fermi approach is widely used for crust modeling precisely because it captures the relevant physics in this regime. Nevertheless, to strengthen the manuscript, we will add an explicit sensitivity test in the revised version by sampling subsets of the posterior with varied surface and gradient coefficients and reporting the resulting variations in surface thickness and crustal MOI. This will help quantify the uncertainty due to the extrapolation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section] Results section (comparison to previous works): the reported enhancement in crustal moment of inertia is presented without a quantitative decomposition of contributions from the Bayesian propagation versus the specific ETF functional form or the astrophysical filters; without this breakdown it is difficult to judge whether the increase is robust or an artifact of the chosen approximation.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a quantitative decomposition would aid in interpreting the origin of the observed increase in crustal moment of inertia. In the current work, the enhancement arises from the consistent treatment of correlations across the full posterior, but we did not isolate the individual contributions. In the revised manuscript, we will include additional comparisons: (i) results using the mean parameters versus the full posterior to highlight the effect of Bayesian propagation, and (ii) a brief discussion of how the ETF functional compares to other crust models in the literature. A complete isolation of all factors would require extensive additional calculations, but these additions will provide a clearer picture of the robustness. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain is self-contained with independent inputs and outputs

full rationale

The paper takes a pre-existing multidimensional posterior on Skyrme parameters (constrained by static and dynamic nuclear observables) as input, constructs unified EoSs via extended Thomas-Fermi for the crust, and applies separate astrophysical filters from NS mass, GW170817, and NICER data. The reported increases in surface thickness and crustal moment of inertia are computed outputs of this pipeline. No equation or step reduces a claimed result to a fitted parameter by construction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The derivation remains externally benchmarked against nuclear data and astrophysical constraints.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the transferability of Skyrme posteriors fitted to finite nuclei to neutron-star crust conditions and on the adequacy of the extended Thomas-Fermi approximation for the inner crust.

free parameters (1)
  • Skyrme functional parameters
    Multidimensional posterior distribution derived from nuclear structure observables
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Skyrme energy density functionals provide a sufficient description of nuclear matter at the densities and asymmetries relevant to the neutron-star crust
    Invoked when constructing the unified EoS from the nuclear posterior
  • domain assumption The extended Thomas-Fermi method accurately captures surface and spin-orbit effects in the inner crust
    Used to treat the inner crust while maintaining consistency with bulk parameters

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5713 in / 1395 out tokens · 49733 ms · 2026-05-22T01:30:31.979439+00:00 · methodology

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

86 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages · 20 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Properties of the neutron star crust informed by nuclear structure data

    provides a relatively simple analytic representation of the nuclear EoS at zero temperature and for a given proton fraction, under the core assumption that matter is purely nucleonic. For astrophysical applications, it is complemented with electrons and muons in weak equilib- rium, forming cold-catalyzednpeµmatter. In this study, arXiv:2505.16929v2 [nucl-...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Klausner, G

    P. Klausner, G. Col` o, X. Roca-Maza, and E. Vigezzi, Phys. Rev. C111, 014311 (2025), arXiv:2410.18598 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    C. Y. Tsang, M. B. Tsang, W. G. Lynch, R. Kumar, and C. J. Horowitz, Nature Astronomy8, 328 (2024), arXiv:2310.11588 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Tamiiet al., Phys

    A. Tamiiet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 062502 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Birkhanet al., Phys

    J. Birkhanet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 252501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Adhikariet al.(PREX Collaboration), Phys

    D. Adhikariet al.(PREX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 172502 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Adhikariet al.(CREX Collaboration), Phys

    D. Adhikariet al.(CREX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 042501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Reinhard, X

    P.-G. Reinhard, X. Roca-Maza, and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 232501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Koliogiannis, E

    P. Koliogiannis, E. Y¨ uksel, T. Ghosh, and N. Paar, The Astrophysical Journal Letters996, L18 (2025)

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    B. T. Reed, F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 172503 (2021)

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    F. J. Fattoyev, J. Piekarewicz, and C. J. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 172702 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Roca-Maza, X

    X. Roca-Maza, X. Vi˜ nas, M. Centelles, B. K. Agrawal, G. Col` o, N. Paar, J. Piekarewicz, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C92, 064304 (2015)

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    In- sights into the physics of neutron star interiors from pulsar glitches,

    M. Antonelli, A. Montoli, and P. Pizzochero, “In- sights into the physics of neutron star interiors from pulsar glitches,” (World Scientific, 2022) pp. 219–281, arXiv:2301.12769 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    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

  15. [15]

    Higher-order effects on the incompressibility of isospin asymmetric nuclear matter

    L.-W. Chen, B.-J. Cai, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, C. Shen, and J. Xu, Phys. Rev. C80, 014322 (2009), arXiv:0905.4323 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  16. [16]

    Chabanat, P

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

    work page 1997

  17. [17]

    J. M. Pearson, N. Chamel, A. Y. Potekhin, A. F. Fantina, C. Ducoin, A. K. Dutta, and S. Goriely, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society481, 2994 (2018), arXiv:1903.04981 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    N. N. Shchechilin, N. Chamel, J. M. Pearson, A. I. Chugunov, and A. Y. Potekhin, Phys. Rev. C109, 055802 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Goriely, N

    S. Goriely, N. Chamel, and J. M. Pearson, Phys. Rev. C 88, 024308 (2013)

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    Typel, M

    CompOSE Core Team, S. Typel, M. Oertel, T. Kl¨ ahn, D. Chatterjee, V. Dexheimer, C. Ishizuka, M. Mancini, J. Novak, H. Pais, C. Providˆ encia, A. R. Raduta, M. Servillat, and L. Tolos, European Physical Journal A58, 221 (2022), arXiv:2203.03209 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Skyrme Interaction and Nuclear Matter Constraints

    M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, J. S. S´ a Martins, A. Delfino, J. R. Stone, and P. D. Stevenson, Phys. Rev. C85, 035201 (2012), arXiv:1202.3902 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    S. Huth, C. Wellenhofer, and A. Schwenk, Physical Re- view C103, 025803 (2021), arXiv:2009.08885 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Montefusco, M

    G. Montefusco, M. Antonelli, and F. Gulminelli, Astronomy and Astrophysical694, A150 (2025), arXiv:2410.08008 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Binary

    J. Antoniadis, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, T. M. Tauris, R. S. Lynch, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Kramer, C. Bassa, V. S. Dhillon, T. Driebe, J. W. T. Hessels, V. M. Kaspi, V. I. Kondratiev, N. Langer, T. R. Marsh, M. A. McLaugh- lin, T. T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, I. H. Stairs, J. van Leeuwen, J. P. W. Verbiest, and D. G. Whelan, Science 340, 448 (2013), arXiv:13...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  25. [25]

    B. P. Abbott, others (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, and V. Collaboration), Physical Review X9, 011001 (2019), arXiv:1805.11579 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Vinciguerra, T

    S. Vinciguerra, T. Salmi, A. L. Watts, D. Choudhury, T. E. Riley, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, Y. Kini, S. Guillot, D. Chakrabarty, W. C. G. Ho, D. Huppenkothen, S. M. Morsink, Z. Wadiasingh, and M. T. Wolff, Astrophysical Journal961, 62 (2024), arXiv:2308.09469 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Choudhury, T

    D. Choudhury, T. Salmi, S. Vinciguerra, T. E. Riley, Y. Kini, A. L. Watts, B. Dorsman, S. Bogdanov, S. Guil- lot, P. S. Ray, D. J. Reardon, R. A. Remillard, A. V. Bilous, D. Huppenkothen, J. M. Lattimer, N. Ruther- ford, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. M. Morsink, and W. C. G. Ho, The Astrophysical Journal Letters971, L20 (2024), arXiv:2407.06789 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Mauviard, S

    L. Mauviard, S. Guillot, T. Salmi, D. Choudhury, B. Dorsman, D. Gonz´ alez-Caniulef, M. Hoogkamer, D. Huppenkothen, C. Kazantsev, Y. Kini, J.-F. Olive, P. Stammler, A. L. Watts, M. Mendes, N. Rutherford, A. Schwenk, I. Svensson, S. Bogdanov, M. Kerr, P. S. Ray, L. Guillemot, I. Cognard, and G. Theureau, The Astrophysical Journal995, 60 (2025)

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Physics of Neutron Star Crusts

    N. Chamel and P. Haensel, Living Reviews in Relativity 11, 10 (2008), arXiv:0812.3955 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  31. [32]

    J. W. Negele and D. Vautherin, Nuclear Physics A207, 298 (1973)

    work page 1973

  32. [33]

    S. K. Greif, G. Raaijmakers, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, and A. L. Watts, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485, 5363 16 (2019), arXiv:1812.08188 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [34]

    Essick, P

    R. Essick, P. Landry, A. Schwenk, and I. Tews, Phys. Rev. C104, 065804 (2021), arXiv:2107.05528 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  34. [35]

    C. A. Raithel and E. R. Most, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 201403 (2023), arXiv:2208.04294 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  35. [36]

    Huang, G

    C. Huang, G. Raaijmakers, A. L. Watts, L. To- los, and C. Providˆ encia, MNRAS529, 4650 (2024), arXiv:2303.17518 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [37]

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

    work page 1971

  37. [38]

    A unified equation of state of dense matter and neutron star structure

    F. Douchin and P. Haensel, Astron. Astrophys.380, 151 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0111092 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  38. [39]

    Neutron star radii and crusts: uncertainties and unified equations of state

    M. Fortin, C. Providˆ encia, A. R. Raduta, F. Gulminelli, J. L. Zdunik, P. Haensel, and M. Bejger, Phys. Rev. C 94, 035804 (2016), arXiv:1604.01944 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [40]

    P. J. Davis, H. Dinh Thi, A. F. Fantina, F. Gulminelli, M. Oertel, and L. Suleiman, Astron. Astrophys.687, A44 (2024), arXiv:2406.14906 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [41]

    Carreau, F

    T. Carreau, F. Gulminelli, and J. Margueron, European Physical Journal A55, 188 (2019), arXiv:1902.07032 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  41. [42]

    Lim and J

    Y. Lim and J. W. Holt, European Physical Journal A55, 209 (2019), arXiv:1902.05502 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  42. [43]

    Dinh Thi, C

    H. Dinh Thi, C. Mondal, and F. Gulminelli, Universe7, 373 (2021), arXiv:2109.09675 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  43. [44]

    W. G. Newton, R. Preston, L. Balliet, and M. Ross, Physics Letters B834, 137481 (2022), arXiv:2111.07969 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  44. [45]

    Brack, C

    M. Brack, C. Guet, and H. B. H˚ akansson, Phys. Rep. 123, 275 (1985)

    work page 1985

  45. [46]

    M. Pi, X. Vinas, M. Barranco, A. Polls, and A. Perez- Canyellas, Astronomy and Astrophysics supplement se- ries64, 439 (1986)

    work page 1986

  46. [47]

    M. Onsi, H. Przysiezniak, and J. M. Pearson, Phys. Rev. C55, 3139 (1997)

    work page 1997

  47. [48]

    Grill, H

    F. Grill, H. Pais, C. m. c. Providˆ encia, I. Vida˜ na, and S. S. Avancini, Phys. Rev. C90, 045803 (2014)

    work page 2014

  48. [49]

    F. m. c. Aymard, F. Gulminelli, and J. Margueron, Phys. Rev. C89, 065807 (2014)

    work page 2014

  49. [50]

    Dinh Thi, T

    H. Dinh Thi, T. Carreau, A. F. Fantina, and F. Gul- minelli, Astronomy and Astrophysics654, A114 (2021), arXiv:2109.13638 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  50. [51]

    Vi˜ nas, C

    X. Vi˜ nas, C. Gonzalez-Boquera, B. K. Sharma, and M. Centelles, Acta Phys. Pol. B Proc. Suppl.10, 259 (2017)

    work page 2017

  51. [52]

    Core-crust transition in neutron stars: predictivity of density developments

    C. Ducoin, J. Margueron, C. Providˆ encia, and I. Vida˜ na, Phys. Rev. C83, 045810 (2011), arXiv:1102.1283 [nucl- th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  52. [53]

    Martin and M

    N. Martin and M. Urban, Phys. Rev. C92, 015803 (2015)

    work page 2015

  53. [54]

    Private communication,

    N. Shchechilin, “Private communication,” (2025)

    work page 2025

  54. [55]

    Pethick, D

    C. Pethick, D. Ravenhall, and C. Lorenz, Nuclear Physics A584, 675 (1995)

    work page 1995

  55. [56]

    Isospin-dependent clusterization of Neutron-Star Matter

    C. Ducoin, P. Chomaz, and F. Gulminelli, Nuclear Physics A789, 403 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0612044 [nucl- th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  56. [57]

    Haensel, A

    P. Haensel, A. Y. Potekhin, and D. G. Yakovlev,Neu- tron stars 1: Equation of state and structure, Vol. 326 (Springer, New York, USA, 2007)

    work page 2007

  57. [58]

    Pastore, M

    A. Pastore, M. Shelley, S. Baroni, and C. A. Diget, Jour- nal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics44, 094003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  58. [59]

    D. G. Ravenhall, C. J. Pethick, and J. M. Lattimer, Nuc. Phys. A407, 571 (1983)

    work page 1983

  59. [60]

    J. M. Lattimer and D. F. Swesty, Nuc. Phys. A535, 331 (1991)

    work page 1991

  60. [61]

    Anti´ c, D

    S. Anti´ c, D. Chatterjee, T. Carreau, and F. Gulminelli, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics46, 065109 (2019), arXiv:1901.03959 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  61. [62]

    Grams, J

    G. Grams, J. Margueron, R. Somasundaram, and S. Reddy, Few-Body Systems62, 116 (2021)

    work page 2021

  62. [63]

    A. Y. Potekhin, A. F. Fantina, N. Chamel, J. M. Pearson, and S. Goriely, Astronomy and Astrophysics560, A48 (2013), arXiv:1310.0049 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  63. [64]

    Carreau, F

    T. Carreau, F. Gulminelli, N. Chamel, A. F. Fantina, and J. M. Pearson, Astronomy and Astrophysics635, A84 (2020), arXiv:1912.01265 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [65]

    Forecasting neutron star temperatures: predictability and variability

    D. Page and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 241102 (2013), arXiv:1307.4455 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  65. [66]

    B. Link, R. I. Epstein, and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 3362 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9909146 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  66. [67]

    Andersson, K

    N. Andersson, K. Glampedakis, W. C. G. Ho, and C. M. Espinoza, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 241103 (2012)

    work page 2012

  67. [68]

    Chamel, Phys

    N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. C85, 035801 (2012)

    work page 2012

  68. [69]

    Montoli, M

    A. Montoli, M. Antonelli, B. Haskell, and P. Pizzochero, Universe7(2021), 10.3390/universe7010008

    work page doi:10.3390/universe7010008 2021

  69. [70]

    Superfluidity and Superconductivity in Neutron Stars

    N. Chamel, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy38, 43 (2017), arXiv:1709.07288 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  70. [71]

    Gavassino, M

    L. Gavassino, M. Antonelli, and B. Haskell, Universe7, 28 (2021), arXiv:2012.10288 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  71. [72]

    J. A. Sauls, N. Chamel, and M. A. Alpar, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2001.09959 (2020), arXiv:2001.09959 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2001

  72. [73]

    Minami and G

    Y. Minami and G. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033141 (2022)

    work page 2022

  73. [74]

    Sekizawa, S

    K. Sekizawa, S. Kobayashi, and M. Matsuo, Phys. Rev. C105, 045807 (2022), arXiv:2112.14350 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  74. [75]

    Superfluid fraction in the crystalline crust of a neutron star: role of BCS pairing

    N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. C111, 045803 (2025), arXiv:2412.05599 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [76]

    Almirante and M

    G. Almirante and M. Urban, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 132701 (2025)

    work page 2025

  76. [77]

    Papakonstantinou, J

    P. Papakonstantinou, J. Margueron, F. Gulminelli, and A. R. Raduta, Phys. Rev. C88, 045805 (2013)

    work page 2013

  77. [78]

    Giant Pulsar Glitches and the Inertia of Neutron-Star Crusts

    T. Delsate, N. Chamel, N. G¨ urlebeck, A. F. Fantina, J. M. Pearson, and C. Ducoin, Phys. Rev. D94, 023008 (2016), arXiv:1606.00016 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  78. [79]

    B. P. Abbott, others (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, and V. Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  79. [80]

    Sorensen, ,et al., Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics134, 104080 (2024), arXiv:2301.13253 [nucl-th]

    A. Sorensen, ,et al., Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics134, 104080 (2024), arXiv:2301.13253 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  80. [81]

    Giliberti, G

    E. Giliberti, G. Cambiotti, M. Antonelli, and P. M. Piz- zochero, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety491, 1064 (2020), arXiv:1809.08542 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.