Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 59 references

Neutrino emission from neutron star matter

T0 review · 3 major / 8 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 A review of neutrino emission from neutron-star matter argues that the sharp direct Urca activation threshold is a zero-temperature artifact of the Fermi-surface approximation, already washed out at temperatures as low as 1 MeV.

desk verdict A useful review of Urca emissivity with a sharp critical comparison, but its most eye-catching claim about T=1 MeV rests on work the authors themselves mark as incomplete. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24485 v1 pith:SULYSOIC submitted 2025-05-30 nucl-th

Omar Benhar , Lucas Tonetto This is my paper
classification nucl-th PACS 25.30.Pt13.15.+g26.60.-c24.10.Cn
keywords neutrinoemissionneutronstarcoolingdirectUrcamodifiedshort-rangecorrelationsthermaleffectsnuclearmatteremissivity
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 review paper argues that the standard picture of neutrino emission from neutron-star cores, built on fully degenerate Fermi gases, breaks down under realistic thermal conditions. Its central conclusion is that the sharp density threshold for the direct Urca process, long used to decide which neutron stars cool quickly, is a zero-temperature artifact: thermal broadening of the Fermi surface already erases it at temperatures as low as 1 MeV. The paper also assembles evidence that short-range correlations between nucleons, omitted in mean-field treatments, quench the direct Urca emissivity by as much as 50% near threshold, with the mean-field value recovered only near four times saturation density. If these conclusions hold, cooling calculations for proto-neutron stars and merger remnants must replace step-function thresholds with smooth, temperature-dependent emissivities computed from one consistent model of nuclear dynamics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the correlated-basis effective interaction $\widetilde{v}_{ij}$, obtained by replacing the bare nucleon-nucleon potential with a density-dependent interaction that reproduces the ground-state energy of cold nuclear matter computed by advanced many-body methods, and the corresponding renormalized weak current $\widetilde{j}$ built from correlated wave functions. The Fermi surface approximation, which sets every participant's momentum to its Fermi momentum, is the simplification that converts momentum conservation into the sharp threshold condition; the review's key numerical move is to lift this approximation and perform the full phase-space integrations with Monte Carlo techniques while keeping the same effective interaction and current. The ratio of emissivities with and without short-range correlations isolates the dynamical quenching and exposes its density dependence.

What would settle it

Compute the direct Urca emissivity of dense npe matter in a fully finite-temperature many-body scheme, with no Fermi-surface approximation and with temperature-dependent correlation functions; if the resulting ratio of correlated to mean-field emissivity stays near unity rather than dropping to about 0.5 at 2.5 saturation density, the quenching claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the two pillars of the standard treatment, the Fermi surface approximation and mean-field nucleon dynamics, are both quantitatively unreliable for hot neutron-star matter. The full phase-space evaluation of the direct Urca emissivity, without setting momenta to their Fermi values, shows that the step-function threshold of the low-temperature formula is smeared into a smooth rise already at 5 MeV, and that deviations are visible at 1 MeV. In parallel, replacing the free weak current with a renormalized current built from correlated wave functions reduces the emissivity by roughly a factor of two near threshold, an effect that fades as density approaches about four times saturation density. The paper further argues that modified Urca and direct Urca are not distinct mechanisms but two limits of one process once finite nucleon widths are included, and that a consistent microscopic model must supply the equation of state, composition, effective masses, and weak currents from the same Hamiltonian.

Load-bearing premise

The effective nucleon interaction used for chemical potentials, effective masses, and the renormalized weak current is built from correlation functions computed in cold matter and assumed unchanged up to roughly 20 MeV; if that interaction is inaccurate at neutron-star-core densities and temperatures, the emissivity curves and the 1 MeV conclusion would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Neutrino-cooling simulations that switch on direct Urca only above a sharp threshold density will misorder the cooling of hot proto-neutron stars, where the process is already active at lower densities.
  • The smooth transition between modified and direct Urca implies that the two mechanisms should be treated in one unified rate rather than as competing channels with a density cutoff.
  • Short-range correlations reduce direct Urca emissivity by up to 50% near threshold, so cooling curves computed with mean-field currents will overestimate the neutrino luminosity there.
  • Single-nucleon properties entering the rates, such as chemical potentials and effective masses, should come from the same Hamiltonian as the equation of state; mixing independent models introduces uncontrolled errors.
  • A consistent treatment of thermal effects on all nuclear-matter properties is required before emissivities can be considered quantitative in the tens-of-MeV regime relevant to merger remnants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 1 MeV breakdown of full degeneracy holds, direct Urca could contribute to cooling of moderately massive neutron stars whose central densities lie below the zero-temperature threshold, which would make observed surface temperatures drop faster than threshold-based models predict.
  • The same renormalized-current suppression should affect neutrino opacities in merger remnants and supernova cores, not just emissivities, because it modifies the same weak transition amplitudes; this is a testable extension for transport simulations.
  • The assumed temperature independence of the correlation functions up to roughly 20 MeV could be checked directly with finite-temperature quantum Monte Carlo; a measurable temperature dependence would shift the emissivity curves at the high end.
  • The unified picture of direct and modified Urca suggests that phenomenological rates fitted separately to the two processes may double-count or miss the transition region, and a single spectral-function calculation would settle the issue.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review article on neutrino emission from neutron star cores. It introduces the weak interactions of nucleons in free space and in nuclear matter, contrasts the mean-field approximation with the correlated-basis-function (CBF) approach, and discusses direct Urca and modified Urca processes. The paper presents results from the authors' own CBF-based calculations, notably that short-range correlations reduce the direct Urca emissivity by up to 50% near threshold and that full phase-space integration at T=5 and 10 MeV removes the sharp density threshold. The abstract and Section 4 make the stronger claim that the Fermi-surface approximation underlying the direct Urca threshold already fails at T≈1 MeV.

Significance. The review is clearly written and contains correct standard formulas, making it a potentially useful pedagogical introduction to the field. Its main original perspective is the consistent CBF treatment of equilibrium and dynamical properties of nuclear matter, and it explicitly acknowledges the limitations of current calculations (e.g., Section 4: 'admittedly still limited by the lack of a consistent treatment of all quantities involved in numerical calculations'). However, the central quantitative claim about failure of the degeneracy approximation at T≈1 MeV is not supported by the manuscript's own calculations and relies on a model that the paper itself qualifies as incomplete. This issue, together with the unsupported assertion about temperature-independent correlation functions, must be addressed before the paper can be recommended for acceptance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 / Figs. 5-6] The statement that the assumption of full degeneracy 'already fails at temperature as low as 1 MeV' is not supported by the calculations shown in this manuscript. The only full phase-space integrations of Eq. (26) are presented at T=5 and 10 MeV (Figs. 5 and 6); no T=1 MeV integration is reported. The 1 MeV claim appears to be imported from Ref. [16], whose spectral-function model (Eq. (36)) is later criticized in the same section for omitting the non-pole component of the nucleon Green's function. The paper should either present a direct T=1 MeV calculation with the same framework or explicitly attribute and qualify the claim as a result of Ref. [16] that the review regards as incomplete.
  2. [Section 2.2.2] The assertion that the temperature dependence of the correlation functions fij is negligible up to ~20 MeV is made without a supporting reference or calculation. Since the effective interaction evij and the renormalized weak current used at T=5 and 10 MeV are built from these T=0 correlation functions, this assumption is load-bearing for the CBF results presented in Figs. 4-6. Please either provide a citation for the finite-temperature FHNC/SOC results or clearly state this as an assumption and discuss the associated uncertainty.
  3. [Section 4] The sentence claiming that correlation effects lead to 'a sizeable quenching of the weak transition amplitudes driving dUrca and mUrca processes alike' is broader than the evidence displayed. The figures presented in this review (Figs. 4-6) concern only the direct Urca emissivity; no quantitative mUrca result is shown. To support the 'alike' assertion, either show the corresponding mUrca quenching or restrict the statement to the dUrca case.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 1] Typos: 'reasction mechanisms' should be 'reaction mechanisms'; 'Hamoltonian' should be 'Hamiltonian'.
  2. [Section 2.2.1] Typos and spacing: 'consistes' should be 'consists'; 'Fermi momentumkFN' needs a space between 'momentum' and 'kFN'.
  3. [Section 2.2.2] 'arenormalisation' should be 'a renormalization'.
  4. [Section 3.1] Typo: 'laking' should be 'lacking'.
  5. [Section 3.4] Typo: 'momrntum' should be 'momentum'.
  6. [Section 4] Typos: 'propapagtor' should be 'propagator'; 'analyised' should be 'analyzed'; 'opeators' should be 'operators'.
  7. [References] Reference 23: 'Chcago' should be 'Chicago'; Reference 45: 'Vicking' should be 'Viking'.
  8. [Figure 7 caption] 'N = n, plabels' should read 'N = n, p labels' with a space.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's quantitative content comes from explicit phase-space integrals and externally published many-body calculations, and no central prediction is equivalent by construction to a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper is a review whose central quantitative claims are (i) the sharp dUrca threshold follows from the T=0 kinematic condition k_Fn <= k_Fp + k_Fe (Eqs. (24)-(25)), not from the emissivity calculation; (ii) full phase-space integration of Eq. (26) washes out the threshold at T=5 and 10 MeV (Figs. 5-6); and (iii) short-range correlations quench the dUrca emissivity near threshold (Figs. 4-6). None of these steps reduces to its inputs: the emissivity is computed from Fermi-Dirac distributions and matrix elements, and the renormalized weak current of Eq. (17) is obtained from a cluster expansion of a realistic Hamiltonian, not fitted to the emissivity values being reported. The claim in Section 4 that degeneracy fails at temperatures as low as 1 MeV is not demonstrated by the paper's own full-phase-space calculation, which starts at 5 MeV; it is imported from Refs. [14-16], especially the Sedrakian spectral-function model of Eq. (36), which the review itself criticizes for omitting the non-pole component found in CBF calculations. This is an evidentiary weakness, but it is not circularity: the review does not define a predicted quantity in terms of the data used to produce it. The many self-citations (Refs. [17,22,50]) provide the effective interaction, proton fractions, and emissivity curves used in the figures, but these are externally published calculations with stated models (CBF, Argonne v6', UIX) and not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for an absent derivation. Overall, the review's chain of reasoning is transparent and no equation is equivalent by construction to a previously fitted parameter.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review relies on the standard model of weak interactions and standard nuclear many-body theory. The main model assumptions are the non-relativistic Hamiltonian, the CBF effective interaction, and the adiabatic treatment of temperature. No new entities or fitted parameters are introduced in this paper.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The Fermi contact four-fermion interaction accurately describes neutrino-nucleon interactions at the energies relevant to neutron stars.
    Invoked in Section 2, replacing W and Z exchange. Standard model physics.
  • domain assumption Nuclear dynamics is described by a non-relativistic Hamiltonian with two- and three-body potentials, and thermal effects do not modify the potential at T << m_pi.
    Section 2.2 states this tenet. If the effective interaction changes with temperature, the emissivity results would change.
  • domain assumption Correlation functions fij are determined at T = 0 and applied at finite T up to 20 MeV.
    Section 2.2.2 relies on numerical results showing negligible T dependence. This is load-bearing for the finite temperature emissivities.
  • domain assumption npe matter: electrons ultrarelativistic and non-interacting, neutrinos stream freely, muons ignored.
    Section 3 states these assumptions. Muons become relevant at higher densities, which would alter the composition and emissivity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino emission from neutron star matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SULYSOIC

@misc{pith2026250524485,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino emission from neutron star matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SULYSOIC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24485}
}
abstract

The temperature of a newly formed neutron star is believed to be as high as $10^{11}$~K, corresponding to a thermal energy of about $10$ MeV. After a time $t \sim 50 \ {\rm s}$, the neutrino mean free path in nuclear matter exceeds the typical star radius, R~$\sim$~10 Km, and neutrino emission becomes the dominant mechanism of energy loss, eventually bringing the temperature down to $\sim10^{8}$~K. Neutrinos also play a critical role in determining the composition of matter in the star interior, consisting primarily of a charge-neutral mixture of neutrons, protons and leptons in $\beta$-equilibrium. This article provides an introduction to the weak interactions of nucleons in nuclear matter, as well as a concise review of the neutrino emission reactions taking place in the neutron star core. The approximations involved in the standard theoretical treatment of thermal and dynamical effects are analysed in the light of the recent progress of the field, and the prospects for future developments are outlined.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24485 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Squared transition matrix element of the α = 0 component of the effective weak current, defined by Eq. (17), in cold SNM at equilibrium density. The results, corresponding to fixed momentum transfer q = 0.3 fm−1 , are displayed as a function of the neutron momentum. For comparison, the dashed horizontal line shows the predictions of the independent-particle model. Adapted from Ref. [36]. to be compared to Eq. (14). … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagrammatic representation of ν emission through the dUrca process in npe matter. For illustration, let us consider ν emission associated with the elementary pro￾cess illustrated by the diagram of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: density dependence of the proton fraction in npe matter at temperature T =0, 5, 10, and 20 MeV. Adapted from Ref. [22]. Right panel: density dependence of the ratio (kFp + kFe )/kFn . The horizontal line indicates the threshold for activation of the dUrca mechanism at T = 0. Reprinted from Ref. [17]. © Lucas Tonetto, 2024. All rights reserved. It should be emphasised that the activation threshold of the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the density dependence of the emissivity of the Urca processes in npe matter at T = 0.1 MeV, evaluated within the approach based on the FSA and the phase space decomposition described above; the effective masses and chemical potentials of the degenerate fermions …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Emissivity of the dUrca processes at T = 5 and 10 MeV, obtained from Eq. (26) without using the FSA, and carrying out the full phase space integration. The solid and dashed lines correspond to calculations performed with and without inclusion of the SRC, respectively. …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Density dependence of the ratio between the emissivities of the dUrca processes computed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Diagrammatic representation of ν emission through modified Urca processes in npe matter. Both diagrams involve a combination of neutron β-decay and a NN interaction, depicted by the dashed line. The label N = n, p corresponds to the neutron and proton branch, respectiv…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Total neutrino emissivity in npe matter at T = 108 , 3 × 108 , and 109 K, displayed as a function of matter density measured in units of 1014 g cm−3 . Note that in these units the saturation density of cold nuclear matter is ϱ0 ≈ 2.57. The results have been obtained by…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic representation of the polarisation tensor of Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison between the density dependence of the neutron decay rate of Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Proton fraction dependence of the dUrca neutrino emissivity of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Sedrakian, Phys

    A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. Lett.133 (2024) 171401

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Perego, S

    A. Perego, S. Bernuzzi and D. Radice, Eur. Phys. J. A55 (2019) 124

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Mezzacappa, E

    A. Mezzacappa, E. Endeve, O. E. Bronson Messer and S. W. Bruenn, Liv. Rev. Com- put. Astrophys. 6 (2020) 4

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Prakash, I

    M. Prakash, I. Bombaci, M. Prakash, P. J. Ellis, J. M. Lattimer and R. Knorren, Phys. Rep. 280 (1997) 1

    work page 1997

  5. [4]

    D. G. Yakovlev and C. J. Pethick, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.42 (2004) 169

    work page 2004

  6. [5]

    Brandes, W

    L. Brandes, W. Weise and N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 094014

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Brandes and W

    L. Brandes and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 034005

    work page 2025

  8. [7]

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink and W. Zheng, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934 (2022) L17

    work page 2022

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    Benhar, Particles 6 (2023) 611

    O. Benhar, Particles 6 (2023) 611

    2023

  2. [9]

    Yakovlev, A

    D. Yakovlev, A. Kaminker, O. Gnedin and P. Haensel, Phys. Rep. 354 (2001) 1

    2001

  3. [10]

    Chamel and P

    N. Chamel and P. Haensel, Living Rev. Rel.11 (2008) 10

    2008

  4. [11]

    B. L. Friman and O. V. Maxwell, Astrophys. J. 232 (1979) 541

    1979

  5. [12]

    D. G. Yakovlev and K. P. Levenfish, Astronomy & Astrophysics297 (1995) 717

    1995

  6. [13]

    P. S. Shternin, M. Baldo and P. Haensel, Phys. Lett. B786 (2018) 28

    2018

  7. [14]

    Suleiman, M

    L. Suleiman, M. Oertel and M. Mancini, Phys. Rev. C108 (2023) 035803

    2023

  8. [15]

    M. G. Alford, A. Haber and Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C110 (2024) L052801

    2024

  9. [17]

    Tonetto, Thermal effects in nuclear matter and neutron stars, PhD thesis, Sapienza University of Rome (2024)

    L. Tonetto, Thermal effects in nuclear matter and neutron stars, PhD thesis, Sapienza University of Rome (2024). https://iris.uniroma1.it/handle/11573/1715868

    2024

  10. [18]

    Tonetto and O

    L. Tonetto and O. Benhar, Paper in preparation(2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Benhar, A

    O. Benhar, A. Lovato, A. Maselli and F. Pannarale (eds.), Nuclear Theory in the Age of Multimessenger Astronomy(CRC Press, 2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Benhar and A

    O. Benhar and A. Lovato, Phys. Rev. C96 (2017) 054301

    2017

  13. [21]

    Benhar, A

    O. Benhar, A. Lovato and G. Camelio, Astrophys. J. 939 (2022) 52

    2022

  14. [22]

    Tonetto and O

    L. Tonetto and O. Benhar, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 103020

    2022

  15. [23]

    G. G. Raffelt, Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics(University of Chcago Press, 1996)

    1996

  16. [24]

    Hanhart, D

    C. Hanhart, D. R. Phillips and S. Reddy, Phys. Lett. B499 (2001) 9

    2001

  17. [25]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, K. E. Schmidt and R. B. Wiringa, Rev. Mod. Phys.87 (2015) 1067

    2015

  18. [26]

    Baym and C

    G. Baym and C. J. Pethick, Landau Fermi-Liquid Theory(John Wiley & Sons, 1991)

    1991

  19. [27]

    Benhar, Nuclear Physics News26 (2016) 15

    O. Benhar, Nuclear Physics News26 (2016) 15

    2016

  20. [28]

    Benhar, V

    O. Benhar, V. R. Pandharipande and S. C. Pieper, Rev. Mod. Phys.65 (Jul 1993) 817. September 4, 2025 0:0 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE manuscript Neutrino emission from neutron star matter 25

    1993

  21. [29]

    Arrington, N

    J. Arrington, N. Fomin and A. Schmidt, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.72 (2022) 307

    2022

  22. [30]

    Benhar and S

    O. Benhar and S. Fantoni, Nuclear Matter Theory(CRC Press, 2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    S. T. Cowell and V. R. Pandharipande, Phys. Rev. C67 (2003) 035504

    2003

  24. [32]

    J. W. Clark, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics2 (1979) 89

    1979

  25. [33]

    Benhar and M

    O. Benhar and M. Valli, Phys. Rev. Lett.99 (2007) 232501

    2007

  26. [34]

    Benhar, A

    O. Benhar, A. Polls, M. Valli and I. Vidana, Phys. Rev. C81 (2010) 024305

    2010

  27. [35]

    S. T. Cowell and V. R. Pandharipande, Phys. Rev. C73 (2006) 025801

    2006

  28. [36]

    Benhar and N

    O. Benhar and N. Farina, Phys. Lett. B680 (2009) 305

    2009

  29. [37]

    Lovato, C

    A. Lovato, C. Losa and O. Benhar, Nucl. Phys. A901 (2013) 22

    2013

  30. [38]

    Lovato, O

    A. Lovato, O. Benhar, S. Gandolfi and C. Losa, Phys. Rev. C89 (2014) 025804

    2014

  31. [39]

    Sedrakian and J

    A. Sedrakian and J. W. Clark, Eur. Phys. J. A55 (2019) 167

    2019

  32. [40]

    Takatsuka, R

    T. Takatsuka, R. Tamagaki and T. Tatsumi, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supple- ment 112 (1993) 67

    1993

  33. [41]

    C. J. Pethick, Rev. Mod. Phys.64 (1992) 1133

    1992

  34. [42]

    T. Muto, T. Takatsuka, R. Tamagaki and T. Tatsumi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.112 (1993) 221

    1993

  35. [43]

    Tsuruta, M

    S. Tsuruta, M. A. Teter, T. Takatsuka, T. Tatsumi and R. Tamagaki, Astrophys. J. Lett. 571 (2002) L143

    2002

  36. [44]

    Gamow and M

    G. Gamow and M. Schoenberg, Phys. Rev. 58 (1940) 1117

    1940

  37. [45]

    Gamow, My World Line: An Informal Autobiography(The Vicking Press, 1970)

    G. Gamow, My World Line: An Informal Autobiography(The Vicking Press, 1970)

    1970

  38. [46]

    Benhar, Structure and Dynamics of Compact Stars(Springer, 2023)

    O. Benhar, Structure and Dynamics of Compact Stars(Springer, 2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Wiringa and S

    R. Wiringa and S. Pieper, Phys. Rev. Lett.89 (2002) 182501

    2002

  40. [48]

    Carlson, V

    J. Carlson, V. R. Pandharipande and R. B. Wiringa, Nucl. Phys. A401 (1983) 59

    1983

  41. [49]

    B. S. Pudliner, V. R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 4396

    1995

  42. [50]

    Benhar, A

    O. Benhar, A. Lovato and L. Tonetto, Universe 9 (2023) 345

    2023

  43. [51]

    R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C51 (1995) 38

    1995

  44. [52]

    F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz and G. Shen, Phys. Rev. C82 (2010) 055803

    2010

  45. [53]

    Sedrakian and A

    A. Sedrakian and A. E. L. Dieperink, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 083002

    2000

  46. [54]

    Hen et al., Science 346 (2014) 614

    O. Hen et al., Science 346 (2014) 614

    2014

  47. [55]

    Benhar, A

    O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini and S. Fantoni, Phys. Rev. C41 (1990) R24

    1990

  48. [56]

    Fantoni and V

    S. Fantoni and V. Pandharipande, Nucl. Phys. A427 (1984) 473

    1984

  49. [57]

    Benhar, A

    O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini and S. Fantoni, Nuclear Physics A505 (1989) 267

    1989

  50. [58]

    Benhar, A

    O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini and S. Fantoni, Nuclear Physics A550 (1992) 201

    1992

  51. [59]

    Benhar, D

    O. Benhar, D. Day and I. Sick, Rev. Mod. Phys.80 (2008) 189

    2008

Pith tools

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