Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Neutron Star Inner Crust at Finite Temperatures: A Comparison Between Compressible Liquid Drop and Extended Thomas-Fermi Approaches

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At finite temperature, the fast liquid-drop model matches the extended Thomas-Fermi crust calculation—except for proton radii.

desk verdict Useful, honest CLDM vs TETF benchmark for the hot inner crust; the composition agreement depends partly on a circular surface-energy fit, but the paper discloses it and the thermodynamic results are solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19984 v1 pith:YZY47FI3 submitted 2025-05-26 nucl-th astro-ph.HE

Guilherme Grams , Nikolai N. Shchechilin , Théau Diverrès , Anthea F. Fantina , Nicolas Chamel , Francesca Gulminelli This is my paper
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HE PACS 26.60.-c21.65.Mn
keywords neutronstarsinnercrustfinitetemperatureequationofstatecompressibleliquiddropmodelextendedThomas-FermisurfaceenergyBSk24functional
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 tests whether the computationally cheap compressible liquid-drop model (CLDM) can stand in for the more microscopic, temperature-dependent extended Thomas-Fermi (TETF) method when describing the inner crust of a neutron star at finite temperatures up to about 2 MeV. Building both approaches on the same nuclear functional (BSk24), it finds that the CLDM closely tracks the TETF predictions for the thermodynamic quantities—free energy, pressure, and neutron chemical potential—and reproduces the composition trends (proton and neutron numbers per Wigner-Seitz cell), especially when the CLDM surface energy is fitted to ETF calculations rather than to experimental masses. The systematic failure is geometric: the CLDM represents each cluster by a single radius with no neutron skin, so it places protons too far out and overestimates their radii, a defect that matters for transport and elastic properties that depend on the charge distribution. If correct, the benchmark tells builders of supernova and merger equations of state where fast CLDM-based tables can be trusted and where a TETF-level treatment is needed.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the contrast between two finite-size treatments sharing one functional. The TETF method is a semi-classical approximation built from the second-order Wigner-Kirkwood (gradient) expansion of the free energy, with neutron and proton density profiles parametrized by smooth soft-damping shapes and minimized at each density and temperature. The CLDM condenses each cluster into a uniform sphere of radius $r_N$ and internal density $n_i$, splitting the free energy into bulk, Coulomb, and surface-plus-curvature parts, with surface and curvature tensions $\sigma_s$ and $\sigma_c$ depending on cluster asymmetry; the load-bearing step is how the surface parameters are obtained, and the paper compares three fits: to ETF calculations in the medium at $T = 0$, to an ETF mass table from the proton to the neutron drip line, and to the AME2020 experimental masses. The single-radius closure relation—baryon conservation fixing $r_N$ and charge conservation fixing the cluster proton density—is what makes the CLDM fast, and also what removes the neutron skin; all three fits ignore the skin, and a fit that included it raised the $\chi^2$ on the zero-temperature fits, which is why the paper keeps the one-radius prescription.

What would settle it

A finite-temperature Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov calculation with the BSk24 functional, or a TETF run whose density profiles allow a separate neutron radius (a two-radius parametrization), would settle the claimed cause of the proton-radius overestimation: if the overestimation persists when a neutron skin is allowed, the single-radius geometry is not the explanation. A second, cheaper check is to redo the Appendix A surface-energy extraction with a two-radius prescription and see whether the fitted surface parameters move by more than their fit uncertainties, which would confirm that the spurious bulk contribution the authors warn about is materially affecting the CLDM fit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the one-component-plasma, Wigner-Seitz treatment of the inner crust in beta equilibrium is largely independent of which of the two finite-size descriptions is used. At temperatures of 1–2 MeV and across inner-crust baryon densities, the CLDM and TETF results for free energy per nucleon, pressure, and neutron chemical potential nearly overlap, and temperature moves them the same way; the electron fraction and Wigner-Seitz radius show only small, low-density deviations. For the composition, both methods predict that the proton number $Z$ grows with temperature at high densities and falls with temperature at low densities, and the CLDM reproduces the TETF values best when its surface and curvature parameters are fitted to zero-temperature ETF calculations in the medium or to a full ETF mass table—fits that include highly isospin-asymmetric matter—rather than to the AME2020 experimental masses alone, though even that fit is acceptable. The qualitatively different outcome is the nucleon density profiles: CLDM-deduced profiles are step-like with a single radius, and because the neutron skin is absent the proton radius is overestimated relative to TETF, with the gap growing toward the crust-core transition. The paper also delivers the first inner-crust equation of state and composition from the second-order TETF method with the BSk24 functional, which is the benchmark the CLDM is measured against.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison stands or falls on the assumption that a one-radius cluster with no neutron skin is an adequate representation of the ETF cluster, with the surface energy extracted under that assumption; the authors state this extraction may include a spurious bulk contribution, and if that spurious term is significant the fitted surface parameters—and hence the CLDM composition agreement—would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fast CLDM-based finite-temperature equation-of-state tables remain trustworthy for crust thermodynamics, since pressure, energy, and chemical potentials track the TETF benchmark closely up to about 2 MeV.
  • CLDM composition accuracy improves when the surface fit includes extremely isospin-asymmetric matter (ETF calculations in the medium or ETF mass tables), information absent from terrestrial mass data.
  • Microphysics that depends on the proton density distribution—electron conductivity, neutrino transport, elastic properties—should be taken from TETF-class calculations, because the one-radius CLDM overestimates proton radii.
  • A new second-order TETF inner-crust equation of state and composition table for BSk24 is now available as a benchmark, including first finite-temperature TETF results of this kind.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A minimal upgrade of the CLDM to two radii (cluster radius plus a fitted neutron-skin thickness), fitted on the same ETF benchmarks at finite temperature, might recover TETF proton radii while keeping the model fast; the authors rejected a neutron-skin fit only because it raised the chi-square on the zero-temperature fits they used.
  • The systematic tendency of the AME2020-fitted CLDM to predict lower proton and neutron numbers than TETF suggests that equation-of-state tables calibrated to terrestrial masses alone carry a bias toward smaller, less neutron-rich clusters in the inner crust; repeating this comparison with functionals of different symmetry-energy slope would show whether the bias scales with the skin size.
  • Since the authors set the CLDM surface tension to its zero-temperature value at all temperatures studied, the temperature dependence of the crust composition they report is carried by bulk and Coulomb terms; a dedicated fit of the surface tension's temperature dependence from the TETF profiles would test whether surface melting matters below 2 MeV.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper compares two semiclassical descriptions of the inner crust of a non-accreting neutron star at finite temperature: the temperature-dependent extended Thomas-Fermi (TETF) method and the compressible liquid-drop model (CLDM), both implemented with the same BSk24 functional. The CLDM surface and curvature parameters are fitted in three ways: to zero-temperature ETF calculations of clusters in the medium (protocol i), to a full ETF mass table (protocol ii), and to experimental AME2020 masses (protocol iii). The authors report that the CLDM reproduces the TETF thermodynamic quantities closely, that the TETF composition is best approximated when the CLDM surface energy is fitted to ETF-based data (protocols i and ii), and that the CLDM's neglect of the neutron skin leads to an overestimation of proton radii. They also provide the first second-order TETF equation of state for the inner crust and release the numerical data as supplementary material.

Significance. The paper addresses a question of practical importance: whether the fast CLDM can be substituted for the more microscopic TETF when constructing finite-temperature equations of state for supernova and merger simulations. Its design is clean: using one functional (BSk24) in both frameworks isolates the effect of the finite-size treatment, and the three fitting protocols bracket the sensitivity to the surface-energy input. The main deliverables—a first TETF-based hot inner-crust EoS, benchmark comparisons, and public data—are useful to the community. If the composition agreement survives a quantitative and skin-aware robustness analysis, the conclusions would justify the use of CLDM-based tables for thermodynamic quantities while reserving TETF for density-profile-sensitive microphysics. The present version, however, does not yet provide the quantitative support needed to turn the visual agreement into a firm benchmark statement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Figs 1-3] The central claim of agreement between CLDM and TETF for the thermodynamic properties and composition rests entirely on visual inspection of overlaid curves. No quantitative deviations are reported for F/A_tot, P, μ_n, Y_e, r_WS, Z, or N_tot. Please add explicit comparison metrics (e.g., mean and maximum absolute or relative differences over a stated density range, for each temperature and for each of the three fit protocols). This is particularly important for the composition plots in Fig. 3, where the CLDM underestimates nucleon numbers for roughly 0.01 fm^-3 < n_B < 0.05 fm^-3 and overestimates them near the crust-core transition; without numbers the statement that the agreement is 'reasonable' cannot be assessed.
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A1)-(A5); Appendix B, Eq. (A6)] The favorable T=0 comparison in Fig. A1 is partly built into the fitting procedure. Protocol (i) extracts the surface energy from ETF calculations by mapping the diffuse cluster onto a single sharp radius r_N with n_i taken as the central total density, n_Np from charge conservation, and n_Nn = n_i - n_Np (Eqs. A3-A5). The same mapping is then used in Eq. (A6) to define the TETF surface energy that is compared with the CLDM in Fig. A1. Because the ETF/TETF clusters possess a neutron skin, the bulk subtraction is not the true bulk contribution, and the residual 'may include some spurious bulk contribution,' as acknowledged in Appendix B. A fit to this contaminated residual is expected to reproduce it, so the agreement does not by itself demonstrate that the fitted sharp-interface free energy captures the finite-size effects. Please provide a quantitative estimate of the spurious bulk contribution—for example, by repeating the extraction with a two-radius, skin-aware decomposition and reporting how the fitted parameters in Table 1 and the resulting Z and N_tot change. Footnote 8 reports only that a skin-including fit yields a higher χ2, with no value, no degrees of freedom, and no parameter variation; as it stands it does not rule out a sizable bias.
  3. [Table 1] The best-fit surface parameters are quoted to six significant figures without uncertainties or fit-quality indicators. Moreover, for protocols (ii) and (iii) the parameter p is fixed to 3 rather than fitted, whereas for protocol (i) it is fitted; the table and text do not make this distinction explicit. Please state which parameters were floated in each fit, report their uncertainties (or covariance) and the χ2 or rms residual, and justify the choice p=3 with a sensitivity analysis. This is necessary because the composition curves in Fig. 3 depend directly on these values.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, after Eq. (15)] The sentence 'The third term on the right-hand side of Equation (15), -uFg, accounts for the excluded volume' is imprecise: Eq. (15) has three terms, and the excluded-volume correction enters through the factor (1-u) in the second term, not as a separate third term. Please rephrase.
  2. [Figs 1, 3, A1] Several figure labels and captions contain typographical errors or garbled text, e.g., 'CLDM(fit ETF in the medi m)' in Fig. 1, 'CLDM(fit ETF ass table)' and 'CLDM(fit ETF in the ediu )' in Fig. A1, and 'E_su f' in Fig. A1. Please correct these labels.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] The phrase 'all data used to produce the figures of this work are avaible as supplementary material' contains a typo ('avaible' should be 'available').
  4. [Appendix A, last paragraph] The fitting routine is referred to as 'scipy.curvfit'; the correct name is scipy.optimize.curve_fit.
  5. [Sec. 2.2, opening sentence] The sentence 'The nuclear energetics is described employing a CLDM model approach' is grammatically awkward and redundantly says 'CLDM model'; please rephrase.
  6. [Sec. 3.1, bottom-panel discussion] In the discussion of the neutron chemical potential, the sentence 'due to the degeneracy of the neutron gas, which is, however, lifted by the finite-temperature effect at very low densities leading to the noticeable smaller µn at T = 2 MeV' is a run-on; consider splitting it into two sentences for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CLDM/TETF composition comparison is a genuine benchmark, not a fit to the TETF output.

full rationale

The central comparison is not circular. The CLDM surface parameters are fitted either to zero-temperature ETF in-medium surface energies (protocol i, Appendix A), to an ETF mass table (protocol ii), or to experimental AME2020 masses (protocol iii). None of these fits targets the finite-temperature TETF composition (Z and Ntot) shown in Figure 3, which is obtained by minimizing the respective free-energy functionals; the agreement is therefore a nontrivial prediction. The use of the same BSk24 functional in both models is a deliberate controlled comparison, not an equivalence of inputs. The only passage that could appear circular is Appendix B, where the TETF surface energy is extracted with the same no-skin single-radius mapping (Eqs. A4-A5) used in the fit, and the authors explicitly warn that this quantity 'may include some spurious bulk contribution.' This shared systematic affects the surface-energy diagnostic in Figure A1, but the paper discloses it, and the main composition claim does not reduce to that diagnostic; the independent AME2020 fit yields visibly different composition, showing the fit-(i)/(ii) agreement is not forced by construction. Self-citations (Refs. 16, 27, 29, 64) are prior data or methodological references, not load-bearing uniqueness arguments, and Ref. 29 is published BSk24 ETF data. One reproducibility caveat is that protocol (i) also cites a private communication [63] for part of the ETF in-medium data; this is a data-availability concern, not a circularity. The derivation is self-contained; no circular step meets the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on standard crust approximations (one-component plasma, Wigner-Seitz cells, beta equilibrium, spherical clusters), on the BSk24 functional, and on the CLDM surface-energy fits. The most consequential assumptions are the single-radius cluster geometry with no neutron skin, the omission of temperature dependence in the CLDM surface tension, and the omission of translational free energy. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • CLDM surface and curvature parameters (sigma0, sigma0,c, bs, beta, p) = Three sets in Table 1 (e.g., fit i: sigma0=1.0333, sigma0c=0.1721, bs=29.4187, beta=0.7476, p=3)
    These parameters set the surface and curvature energy in the CLDM (Equations 22-25). They are fitted either to zero-temperature ETF surface energies, to an ETF nuclear mass table, or to experimental atomic masses, and they strongly control the predicted cluster composition and radii.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption One-component plasma: at each density the crust is represented by a single thermodynamically favored cluster in a Wigner-Seitz cell.
    Justified below the crystallization temperature because the cluster distribution is narrow and thermodynamic quantities are nearly insensitive to it; the paper retains it up to T=2 MeV. Section 2, first paragraph.
  • domain assumption Beta equilibrium is assumed throughout the considered temperature and density range.
    Appropriate for late proto-neutron-star cooling stages; the paper cites estimates that beta equilibrium is attained almost everywhere except a thin surface region at early times. Section 2, paragraph before Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Free proton gas is neglected (ngp=0).
    The proton-gas density remains at most about 1e-3 fm^-3 at the bottom of the crust for the considered temperatures, so its effect on the equation of state and composition is stated to be negligible. Section 2.
  • domain assumption Clusters are spherical and pasta phases are ignored.
    Pasta phases are expected only near the crust-core transition, and shell corrections may reduce their density range; spherical treatment is standard in this regime. Section 2.
  • ad hoc to paper Translational free energy of clusters is omitted from the CLDM.
    The paper removes this term deliberately for consistency with the TETF calculation, although Ref. [7] showed it can be important in the hot crust. This omission affects the absolute CLDM free energy and could shift the comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper The CLDM surface tension is taken temperature-independent, h(T)=1, for all temperatures.
    The full temperature dependence is linked to the critical point through beyond-mean-field effects not included here; the paper sets h(T)=1 after checking that T stays below Tc. This simplification governs the finite-temperature behavior of surface and curvature energies in the CLDM.
  • ad hoc to paper The cluster is described by a single radius rN with no neutron skin.
    The surface-energy extraction and the CLDM fits use one radius, with the proton density from charge conservation and the neutron density from the difference (Appendix A, Equations A3-A5). The authors acknowledge this may introduce a spurious bulk contribution in the extracted surface energy (Appendix B).
  • domain assumption TETF nucleon density profiles are restricted to the soft-damping functional form.
    Equation (12) fixes the shape of neutron and proton profiles through variational parameters; it is flexible enough for this regime but narrower than fully unconstrained density profiles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutron Star Inner Crust at Finite Temperatures: A Comparison Between Compressible Liquid Drop and Extended Thomas-Fermi Approaches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZY47FI3

@misc{pith2026250519984,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutron Star Inner Crust at Finite Temperatures: A Comparison Between Compressible Liquid Drop and Extended Thomas-Fermi Approaches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZY47FI3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19984}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the effects of temperature on the properties of the inner crust of a non-accreting neutron star. To this aim, we employ two different treatments: the compressible liquid drop model (CLDM) and the temperature-dependent extended Thomas-Fermi (TETF) method. Our systematic comparison shows an agreement between the two methods on their predictions for the crust thermodynamic properties. We find that the CLDM description can also reproduce reasonably well the TETF composition especially if the surface energy is optimized on the ETF calculation. However, the neglect of neutron skin in CLDM leads to an overestimation of the proton radii.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19984 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Free energy per nucleon (with the neutron mass subtracted out, top panel), pressure (middle panel), and neutron chemical potential (bottom panel) in the WS cell as a function of the baryon density for T = 2 MeV. Results are obtained with the TETF (solid lines) and CLDM with surface parameters fitted to ETF calculations in the medium (dashed lines). For comparison, results at T = 0 MeV are also shown. We turn now to … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Electron fraction (top panel), neutron-gas density (middle panel), and WS-cell radius (bottom panel) as a function of the baryon density for T = 1 MeV and 2 MeV. Results are obtained with the TETF (solid lines) and CLDM with surface parameters fitted to ETF calculations in the medium (dashed lines). For comparison, results at T = 0 MeV are also shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Number of protons (left panels) and total number of neutrons (right panels) in the WS cell as a function of the baryon density. Top panel: results are shown for T = 1 MeV for TETF (solid lines) and CLDM with surface parameters fitted to full ETF mass table (red dashed lines), to ETF calculations in the medium at T = 0 MeV (blue dashed lines), and to the AME2020 table (pink dotted lines). Bottom panel: results are sh… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Neutron (left panels) and proton (right panels) density profiles at two selected baryon densities in the NS inner crust: nB = 0.002 fm−3 (top panels) and nB = 0.04 fm−3 (bottom panels), and at the selected temperature of T = 2 MeV. Solid (dashed) lines show predictions…

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Bayesian inference of neutron star crust properties using an ab initio-benchmarked meta-model

    nucl-th 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A blended meta-model with ab initio-based low-density correction reduces neutron star crust uncertainties and shifts crust-core transition density, pressure, and crustal moment of inertia in Bayesian inference.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Physics of Neutron Star Crusts

    Chamel, N.; Haensel, P . Physics of Neutron Star Crusts. Living Rev. Relativ. 2008, 11, 10. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2008-10

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2008-10 2008

  2. [2]

    Modelling neutron star mountains

    Gittins, F.; Andersson, N.; Jones, D.I. Modelling neutron star mountains. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2020, 500, 5570–5582. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa3635

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3635 2020

  3. [3]

    Neutrino transport in general relativistic neutron star merger simulations

    Foucart, F. Neutrino transport in general relativistic neutron star merger simulations. Living Rev. Comput. Astrophys. 2023, 9, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41115-023-00016-y. Universe 2025, 1, 0 18 of 20

    doi:10.1007/s41115-023-00016-y 2023

  4. [4]

    Composition and structure of protoneutron stars

    Prakash, M.; Bombaci, I.; Prakash, M.; Ellis, P .J.; Lattimer, J.M.; Knorren, R. Composition and structure of protoneutron stars. Physics Reports 1997, 280, 1–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(96)00023-3

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(96)00023-3 1997

  5. [5]

    Neutron Star Cooling

    Yakovlev, D.G.; Pethick, C.J. Neutron Star Cooling. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 2004, 42, 169–210. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.astro.42.053102.134013

    arXiv 2004

  6. [6]

    Evolution of protoneutron stars

    Pons, J.A.; Reddy, S.; Prakash, M.; Lattimer, J.M.; Miralles, J.A. Evolution of protoneutron stars. Astrophys. J. 1999, 513, 780. https://doi.org/10.1086/306889

    doi:10.1086/306889 1999

  7. [7]

    The proto-neutron star inner crust in the liquid phase

    Dinh Thi, H.; Fantina, A.F.; Gulminelli, F. The proto-neutron star inner crust in the liquid phase. A&A 2023, 672, A160. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202245061

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245061 2023

  8. [8]

    Impact of the hot inner crust on compact stars at finite temperature

    Dehman, C.; Centelles, M.; Viñas, X. Impact of the hot inner crust on compact stars at finite temperature. A&A 2024, 687, A236. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202450305

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450305 2024

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Assessing the joint effect of temperature and magnetic field on the neutron star equation of state

    Scurto, L.; Carvalho, V .; Pais, H.; Providência, C. Assessing the joint effect of temperature and magnetic field on the neutron star equation of state. Phys. Rev. C 2024, 110, 045805. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.110.045805

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    A generalized equation of state for hot, dense matter

    Lattimer, J.M.; Douglas Swesty, F. A generalized equation of state for hot, dense matter. Nucl. Phys. A 1991, 535, 331–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(91)90452-C

    1991 doi

  3. [11]

    Equations of state for supernovae and compact stars

    Oertel, M.; Hempel, M.; Klähn, T.; Typel, S. Equations of state for supernovae and compact stars. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2017, 89, 015007. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015007

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Open-source nuclear equation of state framework based on the liquid-drop model with Skyrme interaction

    Schneider, A.S.; Roberts, L.F.; Ott, C.D. Open-source nuclear equation of state framework based on the liquid-drop model with Skyrme interaction. Phys. Rev. C 2017, 96, 065802. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.96.065802

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Finite-temperature equations of state of compact stars with hyperons: three-dimensional tables

    Tsiopelas, S.; Sedrakian, A.; Oertel, M. Finite-temperature equations of state of compact stars with hyperons: three-dimensional tables. Eur. Phys. J. A 2024, 60, 127. https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01351-1

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Fiorella Burgio, G.; Fantina, A.F., Nuclear Equation of State for Compact Stars and Supernovae. In The Physics and Astrophysics of Neutron Stars; Rezzolla, L., Pizzochero, P ., Jones, D.I., Rea, N., Vidaña, I., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; ...

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Neutron stars and the nuclear equation of state

    Burgio, G.F.; Schulze, H.J.; Vidana, I.; Wei, J.B. Neutron stars and the nuclear equation of state. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 2021, 120, 103879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103879

    2021

  8. [16]

    Crystallization of the inner crust of a neutron star and the influence of shell effects

    Carreau, T.; Gulminelli, F.; Chamel, N.; Fantina, A.F.; Pearson, J.M. Crystallization of the inner crust of a neutron star and the influence of shell effects. A&A 2020, 635, A84, https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201937236

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Selfconsistent semiclassical description of average nuclear properties a link between microscopic and macroscopic models

    Brack, M.; Guet, C.; Håkansson, H.B. Selfconsistent semiclassical description of average nuclear properties a link between microscopic and macroscopic models. Phys. Rep. 1985, 123, 275–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(86)90078-5

    1985 doi

  10. [18]

    Extended Thomas–Fermi theory at finite temperature

    Bartel, J.; Brack, M.; Durand, M. Extended Thomas–Fermi theory at finite temperature. Nucl. Phys. A 1985, 445, 263–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(85)90071-5

    1985 doi

  11. [19]

    Relativistic Equation of State for core-collapse Supernova Simulations

    Shen, H.; Toki, H.; Oyamatsu, K.; Sumiyoshi, K. Relativistic Equation of State for core-collapse Supernova Simulations. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2011, 197, 20. https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/20

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    Equation of state of stellar nuclear matter in the temperature-dependent extended Thomas–Fermi formalism

    Onsi, M.; Przysiezniak, H.; Pearson, J.M. Equation of state of stellar nuclear matter in the temperature-dependent extended Thomas–Fermi formalism. Phys. Rev. C 1997, 55, 3139–3148. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.55.3139

    1997 doi

  13. [21]

    Semi-classical equation of state and specific-heat expressions with proton shell corrections for the inner crust of a neutron star

    Onsi, M.; Dutta, A.K.; Chatri, H.; Goriely, S.; Chamel, N.; Pearson, J.M. Semi-classical equation of state and specific-heat expressions with proton shell corrections for the inner crust of a neutron star. Phys. Rev. C 2008, 77, 065805. https://doi.org/10.1 103/PhysRevC.77.065805

    2008

  14. [22]

    A statistical model for a complete supernova equation of state

    Hempel, M.; Schaffner-Bielich, J. A statistical model for a complete supernova equation of state. Nucl. Phys. A 2010, 837, 210–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.02.010

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    Nuclear Statistical Equilibrium Equation of State for Core Collapse

    Raduta, A.R.; Gulminelli, F. Nuclear Statistical Equilibrium Equation of State for Core Collapse. Nucl. Phys. A 2019, 983, 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2018.11.003

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Core-collapse Supernova Equations of State Based on Neutron Star Observations

    Steiner, A.W.; Hempel, M.; Fischer, T. Core-collapse Supernova Equations of State Based on Neutron Star Observations. ApJ 2013, 774, 17. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/17

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    New Equations of State Based on the Liquid Drop Model of Heavy Nuclei and Quantum Approach to Light Nuclei for Core-collapse Supernova Simulations

    Furusawa, S.; Sumiyoshi, K.; Yamada, S.; Suzuki, H. New Equations of State Based on the Liquid Drop Model of Heavy Nuclei and Quantum Approach to Light Nuclei for Core-collapse Supernova Simulations. ApJ 2013, 772, 95. https://doi.org/10.1088/00 04-637X/772/2/95

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    Nuclear equation of state for core-collapse supernova simulations with realistic nuclear forces

    Togashi, H.; Nakazato, K.; Takehara, Y.; Yamamuro, S.; Suzuki, H.; Takano, M. Nuclear equation of state for core-collapse supernova simulations with realistic nuclear forces. Nucl. Phys. A 2017, 961, 78–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.0 2.010

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    Neutron star crust properties: Comparison between the compressible liquid-drop model and the extended Thomas–Fermi approach

    Grams, G.; Margueron, J.; Somasundaram, R.; Chamel, N.; Goriely, S. Neutron star crust properties: Comparison between the compressible liquid-drop model and the extended Thomas–Fermi approach. J. Physi. Conf. Ser. 2022, 2340, 012030. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2340/1/01...

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Further explorations of Skyrme-Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov mass formulas

    Goriely, S.; Chamel, N.; Pearson, J.M. Further explorations of Skyrme-Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov mass formulas. XIII. The 2012 atomic mass evaluation and the symmetry coefficient. Phys. Rev. C 2013, 88, 024308. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.88.024 308

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    Unified equations of state for cold non-accreting neutron stars with Brussels-Montreal functionals—I

    Pearson, J.M.; Chamel, N.; Potekhin, A.Y.; Fantina, A.F.; Ducoin, C.; Dutta, A.K.; Goriely, S. Unified equations of state for cold non-accreting neutron stars with Brussels-Montreal functionals—I. Role of symmetry energy. MNRAS 2018, 481, 2994–3026. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnr...

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Inner crust of a neutron star at the point of crystallization in a multicomponent approach

    Carreau, T.; Fantina, A.F.; Gulminelli, F. Inner crust of a neutron star at the point of crystallization in a multicomponent approach. A&A 2020, 640, A77. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202038347

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    The proto-neutron star inner crust in a multi-component plasma approach

    Dinh Thi, H.; Fantina, A.F.; Gulminelli, F. The proto-neutron star inner crust in a multi-component plasma approach. A&A 2023, 677, A174. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346606

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Neutron Stars 1: Equation of State and Structure; Springer: New York, NY, USA 2007

    Haensel, P .; Potekhin, A.Y.; Yakovlev, D.G. Neutron Stars 1: Equation of State and Structure; Springer: New York, NY, USA 2007

    2007

  25. [33]

    On the accuracy of the single-nucleus approximation in the equation of state of hot, dense matter

    Burrows, A.; Lattimer, J.M. On the accuracy of the single-nucleus approximation in the equation of state of hot, dense matter. ApJ 1984, 285, 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1086/162505

    1984 doi

  26. [34]

    Prior Probability Distributions of Neutron Star Crust Models

    Balliet, L.E.; Newton, W.G.; Cantu, S.; Budimir, S. Prior Probability Distributions of Neutron Star Crust Models. ApJ 2021, 918, 79. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac06a4

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Uncertainties in the pasta-phase properties of catalysed neutron stars

    Dinh Thi, H.; Carreau, T.; Fantina, A.F.; Gulminelli, F. Uncertainties in the pasta-phase properties of catalysed neutron stars. A&A 2021, 654, A114. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202141192

    2021 doi

  28. [37]

    Pasta properties of the neutron star within effective relativistic mean-field model

    Parmar, V .; Das, H.C.; Kumar, A.; Sharma, M.K.; Arumugam, P .; Patra, S.K. Pasta properties of the neutron star within effective relativistic mean-field model. Phys. Rev. D 2022, 106, 023031. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023031

    2022 doi

  29. [38]

    Structure of neutron star crusts from new Skyrme effective interactions constrained by chiral effective field theory

    Lim, Y.; Holt, J.W. Structure of neutron star crusts from new Skyrme effective interactions constrained by chiral effective field theory. Phys. Rev. C 2017, 95, 065805. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.95.065805

    2017 doi

  30. [39]

    Pasta Phases in Neutron Star Mantle: Extended Thomas–Fermi vs

    Shchechilin, N.N.; Zemlyakov, N.A.; Chugunov, A.I.; Gusakov, M.E. Pasta Phases in Neutron Star Mantle: Extended Thomas–Fermi vs. Compressible Liquid Drop Approaches. Universe 2022, 8, 582. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe8110582

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    Unified equations of state for cold nonaccreting neutron stars with Brussels-Montreal functionals

    Pearson, J.M.; Chamel, N. Unified equations of state for cold nonaccreting neutron stars with Brussels-Montreal functionals. III. Inclusion of microscopic corrections to pasta phases. Phys. Rev. C 2022, 105, 015803. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.015803

    2022 doi

  32. [42]

    Proto-neutron star evolution with improved charged-current neutrino–nucleon interactions

    Pascal, A.; Novak, J.; Oertel, M. Proto-neutron star evolution with improved charged-current neutrino–nucleon interactions. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2022, 511, 356–370. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac016

    2022 doi

  33. [43]

    Beta Equilibrium Under Neutron Star Merger Conditions.Universe 2021, 7, 399

    Alford, M.G.; Haber, A.; Harris, S.P .; Zhang, Z. Beta Equilibrium Under Neutron Star Merger Conditions.Universe 2021, 7, 399. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7110399

    2021 doi

  34. [44]

    Evolution of a proto-neutron star with a nuclear many-body equation of state: Neutrino luminosity and gravitational wave frequencies

    Camelio, G.; Lovato, A.; Gualtieri, L.; Benhar, O.; Pons, J.A.; Ferrari, V . Evolution of a proto-neutron star with a nuclear many-body equation of state: Neutrino luminosity and gravitational wave frequencies. Phys. Rev. D 2017, 96, 043015. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.043015

    2017 doi

  35. [45]

    On the Constitution of Metallic Sodium

    Wigner, E.; Seitz, F. On the Constitution of Metallic Sodium. Phys. Rev. 1933, 43, 804–810. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.43.8 04

    1933 doi

  36. [46]

    On the Constitution of Metallic Sodium

    Wigner, E.; Seitz, F. On the Constitution of Metallic Sodium. II. Phys. Rev. 1934, 46, 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.46 .509

    1934 doi

  37. [47]

    Neutron star matter

    Baym, G.; Bethe, H.A.; Pethick, C.J. Neutron star matter. Nucl. Phys. A 1971, 175, 225–271. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1 016/0375-9474(71)90281-8

    1971

  38. [48]

    Energy and Pressure of a Zero-Temperature Plasma

    Salpeter, E.E. Energy and Pressure of a Zero-Temperature Plasma. Astrophys. J. 1961, 134, 669. https://doi.org/10.1086/147194

    1961 doi

  39. [49]

    Neutron star matter at sub-nuclear densities

    Negele, J.; Vautherin, D. Neutron star matter at sub-nuclear densities. Nucl. Phys. A 1973, 207, 298–320. https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(73)90349-7

    1973 doi

  40. [50]

    A mean-field calculation of the equation of state of supernova matter.Nucl

    Bonche, P .; Vautherin, D. A mean-field calculation of the equation of state of supernova matter.Nucl. Phys. A 1981, 372, 496–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(81)90049-X

    1981 doi

  41. [51]

    Validity of the Wigner-Seitz approximation in neutron star crust

    Chamel, N.; Naimi, S.; Khan, E.; Margueron, J. Validity of the Wigner-Seitz approximation in neutron star crust. Phys. Rev. C 2007, 75, 055806. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.75.055806

    2007 doi

  42. [52]

    Modeling nuclear “pasta” and the transition to uniform nuclear matter with the 3D Skyrme-Hartree- Fock method at finite temperature: Core-collapse supernovae

    Newton, W.G.; Stone, J.R. Modeling nuclear “pasta” and the transition to uniform nuclear matter with the 3D Skyrme-Hartree- Fock method at finite temperature: Core-collapse supernovae. Phys. Rev. C 2009, 79, 055801. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC. 79.055801. Universe 2025, 1...

    2009 doi

  43. [53]

    Further explorations of Skyrme-Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov mass formulas

    Chamel, N.; Goriely, S.; Pearson, J.M. Further explorations of Skyrme-Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov mass formulas. XI. Stabilizing neutron stars against a ferromagnetic collapse. Phys Rev C 2009, 80, 065804. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.80.065804

    2009 doi

  44. [54]

    On the Fermi functions I −(n+1/2)

    Onsi, M.; Chaara, A.M.; Pearson, J.M. On the Fermi functions I −(n+1/2). Z. Fur. Phys. Hadron. Nucl. 1994, 348, 255–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01305881

    1994 doi

  45. [55]

    Unified equations of state for cold nonaccreting neutron stars with Brussels-Montreal functionals

    Shchechilin, N.N.; Chamel, N.; Pearson, J.M.; Chugunov, A.I.; Potekhin, A.Y. Unified equations of state for cold nonaccreting neutron stars with Brussels-Montreal functionals. V . Improved parametrization of the nucleon density distributions.Phys. Rev. C 2024, 109, 055802. htt...

    2024 doi

  46. [56]

    Physical properties of hot, dense matter: The general case

    Lattimer, J.M.; Pethick, C.J.; Ravenhall, D.G.; Lamb, D.Q. Physical properties of hot, dense matter: The general case. Nucl. Phys. A 1985, 432, 646–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(85)90006-5

    1985 doi

  47. [57]

    Isospin-dependent clusterization of neutron-star matter.Nucl

    Ducoin, C.; Chomaz, P .; Gulminelli, F. Isospin-dependent clusterization of neutron-star matter.Nucl. Phys. A 2007, 789, 403–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.03.006

    2007 doi

  48. [58]

    Equation of state for dense nucleonic matter from metamodeling

    Margueron, J.; Hoffmann Casali, R.; Gulminelli, F. Equation of state for dense nucleonic matter from metamodeling. I. Foundational aspects. Phys. Rev. C 2018, 97, 025805. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.97.025805

    2018 doi

  49. [59]

    Structure of matter below nuclear saturation density

    Ravenhall, D.G.; Pethick, C.J.; Wilson, J.R. Structure of matter below nuclear saturation density. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1983, 50, 2066–2069. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.2066

    1983 doi

  50. [60]

    Nuclear “pasta” structures and the charge screening effect

    Maruyama, T.; Tatsumi, T.; Voskresensky, D.N.; Tanigawa, T.; Chiba, S. Nuclear “pasta” structures and the charge screening effect. Phys. Rev. C 2005, 72, 015802. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.72.015802

    2005 doi

  51. [61]

    A Survey of the Parameter Space of the Compressible Liquid Drop Model as Applied to the Neutron Star Inner Crust

    Newton, W.G.; Gearheart, M.; Li, B.A. A Survey of the Parameter Space of the Compressible Liquid Drop Model as Applied to the Neutron Star Inner Crust. ApJ Supp. 2013, 204, 9. https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/204/1/9

    2013 doi

  52. [62]

    Nuclear interface energy at finite temperatures

    Ravenhall, D.G.; Pethick, C.J.; Lattimer, J.M. Nuclear interface energy at finite temperatures. Nucl. Phys. A 1983, 407, 571–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(83)90667-X

    1983 doi

  53. [63]

    Private communications, 2024

    Pearson, J.M. Private communications, 2024

    2024

  54. [64]

    Parametrization of the surface energy in the ETF approximation

    Furtado, U.J.; Gulminelli, F. Parametrization of the surface energy in the ETF approximation. J. Phys. Nucl. Phys. 2021, 48, 015102. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/abb44b

    2021 doi

  55. [65]

    The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II)

    Wang, M.; Huang, W.J.; Kondev, F.G.; Audi, G.; Naimi, S. The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and references. Chin. Phys. C 2021, 45, 030003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/abddaf

    2020 doi

  56. [66]

    The AME2016 atomic mass evaluation (II)

    Wang, M.; Audi, G.; Kondev, F.G.; Huang, W.J.; Naimi, S.; Xu, X. The AME2016 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and references. Chin. Phys. C 2017, 41, 030003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030003

    2017 doi

  57. [67]

    Neutrino pair bremsstrahlung by electrons in neutron star crusts

    Kaminker, A.D.; Pethick, C.J.; Potekhin, A.Y.; Thorsson, V .; Yakovlev, D.G. Neutrino pair bremsstrahlung by electrons in neutron star crusts. A&A 1999, 343, 1009. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9812447

    1999 doi arXiv

  58. [68]

    Thermal relaxation in young neutron stars.Mon

    Gnedin, O.Y.; Yakovlev, D.G.; Potekhin, A.Y. Thermal relaxation in young neutron stars.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2001, 324, 725. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04359.x

    2001

  59. [69]

    Role of neutron pairing with density-gradient dependence in the semimicroscopic treatment of the inner crust of neutron stars

    Chamel, N.; Pearson, J.M.; Shchechilin, N.N. Role of neutron pairing with density-gradient dependence in the semimicroscopic treatment of the inner crust of neutron stars. Phys. Rev. C 2024, 110, 045808. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.110.045808

    2024 doi

  60. [70]

    Comparison between the Thomas–Fermi and Hartree–Fock–Bogoliubov Methods in the Inner Crust of a Neutron Star: The Role of Pairing Correlations

    Shelley, M.; Pastore, A. Comparison between the Thomas–Fermi and Hartree–Fock–Bogoliubov Methods in the Inner Crust of a Neutron Star: The Role of Pairing Correlations. Universe 2020, 6, 206. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe6110206

    2020 doi

  61. [71]

    Time-Dependent Nuclear Energy-Density Functional Theory Toolkit for Neutron Star Crust: Dynamics of a Nucleus in a Neutron Superfluid

    P˛ ecak, D.; Zdanowicz, A.; Chamel, N.; Magierski, P .; Wlazłowski, G. Time-Dependent Nuclear Energy-Density Functional Theory Toolkit for Neutron Star Crust: Dynamics of a Nucleus in a Neutron Superfluid. Phys. Rev. X 2024, 14, 041054. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.14.0410...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.