Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 90 references

A portable AI skill lets a general LLM agent read a nuclear model, fit its couplings, and report neutron-star and nuclear-matter observables without human intervention.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 03:16 UTC pith:VIXAULM7

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful agent-skill for RMF-to-neutron-star work, but the autonomous-fit demo returns an unstable Lagrangian and the benchmark overclaims. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13930 v1 pith:VIXAULM7 submitted 2026-07-15 nucl-th astro-ph.HEphysics.comp-ph

NNStar: An end-to-end AI agent for nuclear matter and neutron star physics

Yao Ma , Yong-Liang Ma , Jia-Ying Xiong This is my paper
classification nucl-th astro-ph.HEphysics.comp-ph
keywords NNStarportable skilllarge language model agentrelativistic mean-field modelequation of stateneutron starTOV equationBayesian joint analysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that the slow, manual work of constraining a dense-matter effective model—fitting its couplings against nuclear-matter data, neutron-star masses and radii, and tidal deformability—can be delegated end to end to a general-purpose AI agent. Its proposal, NNStar, is a portable skill: a documented bundle of symbolic and numerical physics code that any compliant large-language-model agent can load and drive. The agent builds the model from a Lagrangian, derives and solves the mean-field equations, constructs the beta-equilibrium equation of state with a crust, integrates the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equations, and scores the result with a Bayesian joint analysis. The authors validate the skill on three established relativistic mean-field models, use it to add a sextic scalar term to one model and re-optimize the couplings against data, and benchmark several contemporary LLMs with and without the skill. If the claim holds, the manual fine-tuning bottleneck in equation-of-state inference disappears, and such analyses become reproducible and auditable.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the core claim is that a deterministic, model-agnostic physics stack—not the language model's parametric memory—can carry the entire forward-and-inference pipeline, and that packaging this stack as a platform-agnostic skill makes the capability transferable across any sufficiently capable LLM agent. A user makes a natural-language request; the agent reads the skill specification, invokes the bundled code for each step, and returns saturation properties, mass-radius curves, and statistical scores. The skill reproduces three established relativistic mean-field models' published saturation properties and mass-radius behavior to rounding level, and when the agent extend

What carries the argument

The central object is the NNStar skill itself: a self-contained module that pairs a specification file with executable physics code, exposing a layered forward pipeline. The pipeline starts from a general quantum hadrodynamical Lagrangian, symbolically derives the relativistic mean-field equations of motion, numerically solves for the meson fields and saturation properties, constructs beta-equilibrium matter (the charge-neutral composition reached by weak interactions), splices the high-density equation of state onto a low-density crust, integrates the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equations for masses, radii, and tidal deformability, and scores the model through a Bayesian joint analysis again

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the skill's bundled physics code—the symbolic derivation, mean-field solver, crust matching, and TOV integration—faithfully implements the standard physics; if a latent bug or approximation error sits in that stack, every agent output inherits it, and the validation's main comparison is to a companion paper sharing the skill's code lineage rather than to fully independent implementations.

What would settle it

Recompute the saturation properties and mass-radius curves of the three established models with an independently written solver using the original publications' full-precision couplings, and compare point by point with the skill's Table I; a discrepancy in the incompressibility beyond the stated rounding (~7%) or a radius shift larger than ~0.1 km would show the skill's physics stack is not faithful, and with it every downstream agent result.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A researcher can hand the agent a published Lagrangian and receive its nuclear-matter properties, mass-radius curve, and fit quality without writing pipeline code.
  • Because the capability travels as a skill, different LLM agents can load the same physics backend, making the physics independent of the reasoning model.
  • Extending the physics—new interaction terms, new constraints, new observables—is a matter of editing a declarative model definition and the tool catalog, not rewriting the agent.
  • Since outputs come from deterministic code, results are auditable and reproducible, and the benchmark against deterministic ground truth can be rerun for any future LLM.
  • The demonstrated workflow of adding an interaction and re-optimizing can be repeated for other model extensions, including chiral effective models, hyperons, or quark degrees of freedom.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If such a skill becomes widely used, the practical bottleneck in dense-matter equation-of-state inference shifts from numerical implementation to model choice and interpretation; different groups' fits would share one pipeline, making disagreements traceable to physics rather than code.
  • The same 'portable skill' pattern should transfer to other inference problems with a deterministic forward map and a likelihood, such as chiral effective field theory fits or gravitational-wave parameter estimation; the paper does not claim this generality.
  • The validation relies most heavily on a companion paper that shares code lineage with the skill, so the strongest independent test would be reproducing the original model papers directly from their full-precision parameter tables; the paper reports agreement but does not present that comparison.
  • The remaining radius tension in the sextic-augmented fit suggests an immediate testable extension the paper does not run: equipping the agent with a richer isovector sector and checking whether the agent can bring the 1.4-solar-mass radius into the observed range while keeping the maximum mass above two solar masses.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces NNStar, a portable LLM-agent 'skill' for automating relativistic mean-field (RMF) modeling of nuclear matter and neutron stars. The skill is designed to (i) construct an RMF model from a Lagrangian, (ii) symbolically derive and solve the mean-field equations, (iii) compute saturation properties, (iv) build a beta-equilibrium EoS, splice on the BPS crust, integrate the TOV equations, and (v) score the model via a Bayesian joint analysis. The authors validate the skill on TM1, NL3, and FSU-delta6.7, demonstrate an autonomous fit of a sigma^6-extended TM1 model, and benchmark six LLMs with and without the skill. The central claim is that the agent can read, fit, and report nuclear-matter and neutron-star observables end-to-end without human intervention.

Significance. If the pipeline is correct, the skill-based architecture is a genuinely useful contribution: it provides a deterministic, auditable physics backend that can be loaded by any compliant LLM agent, and the public code/data availability supports reproducibility. The derivation of the BJA-to-chi^2 equivalence in App. A is correct, and the separation of LLM planning from deterministic physics execution is a sensible design. However, the load-bearing demonstrations currently have weaknesses: the validation relies on a same-author reference rather than independent published values, the benchmark defines ground truth as the tool stack's own output, and the only autonomous fitting example returns a scalar potential that is unbounded below. These issues must be addressed before the end-to-end claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VI.B, Eq. (8) and Eq. (2)] The optimized Lagrangian is obtained by adding -g_s6 sigma^6/6 to TM1, and the agent reports g_s6 = -2.9e-4 MeV^-2. With the sign convention of Eq. (2), the scalar potential contains +(1/6)g_s6 sigma^6, so V(sigma) -> -infinity as |sigma| -> infinity. The optimization objective (8) has no stability constraint, and the skill does not check or flag this. The agent nevertheless reports chi^2=7.2, M_max=2.11 M_sun, R_1.4=14.3 km and describes only the radius as a limitation. Since this is the only autonomous fitting demonstration, the claim that the agent operates 'without human intervention' is not supported: a human must audit the physicality of the fitted Lagrangian. Add a vacuum-stability check (e.g., require the potential to be bounded below with a positive highest-order coefficient) to the skill and re-run the example; if the optimum remains unphysical, the sigma^6 extension should be
  2. [Sec. VI.A, Table I and Sec. VII.A] The validation compares the skill's output with 'Ref.' values taken from Ref. [64], which is a same-author paper (Y. Ma, Y.-L. Ma, J.-Y. Xiong, arXiv:2603.01933), not the original publications for TM1, NL3, and FSU-delta6.7. The benchmark in Sec. VII.A then defines deterministic ground truth as 'computed by the tool stack itself.' Thus the evidence that the deterministic physics stack is correct is largely internal consistency; a systematic error shared with Ref. [64] would not be detected. Please compare against the original published saturation properties and M-R curves (or an independent code), and clarify that Table I is a comparison to a same-author reference rather than to the original model papers.
  3. [Sec. VII.B, Tables III and IV] The text states that the skill-equipped mode is 'uniformly improved' and that grounding makes the computation 'deterministic ... largely independent of the underlying model.' The data do not fully support this. Kimi-K2.6 with the skill has 2/3 valid runs with mean errors of roughly 101% in matter, 80% in M, and 75% in R; the per-run table shows outputs that are far from the reference values (e.g., Kimi run 16). Qwen3.7-Max has only 2/3 valid runs. The benchmark is explicitly proof-of-concept, but the conclusions should be qualified to reflect that cross-model determinism is not demonstrated, especially for the weaker LLMs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI.B] The text says 'all seven couplings ... are freed' but then lists eight parameters: g_sigma, g_omega, g_rho, g_s3, g_s4, c_3, g_s6, and m_sigma. Fix the count.
  2. [Sec. VI.B vs. App. A] The optimization protocol states that minimizing chi^2 is 'identical, up to an additive constant, to the BJA log-likelihood of Eq. (A4).' The explicit equivalence is actually Eq. (A5); update the cross-reference.
  3. [Sec. VII.A] The phrase 'six observables of Sec. III' is inaccurate: Sec. III defines the model, not the observables. The six observables are enumerated in Sec. VII.A itself. Reword to avoid the incorrect cross-reference.
  4. [Sec. IV.C and Sec. VI.A] The skill is said to support 'import a model directly from the literature' (e.g., from a PDF), but the validation in Sec. VI.A appears to use built-in parameterizations. Clarify whether the PDF-reading capability was exercised, and if not, state that it remains to be validated.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Benchmark ground truth is the tool stack's own output and Table I validates against the same authors' Ref. [64]; the central RMF/TOV/BJA derivation remains standard and externally checkable.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. VII.A (Benchmarks, Task suite and metrics)]
    "dense-matter physics admits a deterministic ground truth: the correct value of any NM or NS observable for a given Lagrangian is fixed by the field equations and computed by the tool stack itself. This allows us to score the agent against exact references rather than human judgment"

    The benchmark's 'exact reference' is defined as the output of the very tool stack the agent is being tested on. A skill-equipped agent that successfully invokes the bundled code returns exactly that reference by construction, so the near-zero errors in Table III demonstrate tool invocation, not independent physical correctness. The NM/NS observables treated as predictions are definitionally equal to the tool's own computation, so this protocol cannot validate the skill; it only checks whether the LLM calls the tool.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. VI.A (Validation on Walecka-type models), Table I]
    "Table I compares the saturation properties recovered by the skill with the values obtained in Ref. [64]."

    Ref. [64] is the authors' own preceding paper by Y. Ma, Y.-L. Ma, and J.-Y. Xiong. The validation's 'published values' are therefore same-author outputs, not the original independent TM1/NL3/FSU publications cited as [65]-[67]. The end-to-end correctness claim reduces to agreement with a same-lineage reference; the table never compares directly against the external original values. Because the underlying mean-field and TOV equations are standard physics, this is load-bearing self-citation rather than full definitional circularity, but it does not constitute independent confirmation.

full rationale

The central physics derivation — symbolic construction of mean-field EOMs from the Lagrangian, RMF solution, beta-equilibrium EoS, crust matching, TOV integration, and Bayesian joint analysis — is standard, self-contained, and not circular. Eq. (A5) explicitly identifies BJA with -1/2 chi^2 + C, an algebraic identity rather than a hidden fitted-input-as-prediction. The main circularity concerns are in the validation/support structure. First, Sec. VII.A defines the benchmark ground truth as the output of the tool stack itself, making a successfully tool-invoking agent's agreement with that reference tautological. Second, Sec. VI.A validates the skill against Ref. [64], the same authors' prior paper, rather than against the original TM1/NL3/FSU publications; the external papers are cited but do not supply the table's 'Ref.' values. The original Walecka-type models do provide independent anchors for the physics, and the equations of state are externally checkable, so the central workflow retains real content. However, the paper's evidence for 'validated end-to-end' operation relies on these two self-referential supports, giving partial circularity in the demonstration rather than in the physics itself. No uniqueness theorem, hidden ansatz, or renamed empirical result was found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's central contribution is a software skill; it introduces no new physical entities. It relies on a set of modeling choices and on a validation benchmark that is partly self-referential (Ref. [64] and the tool-stack-as-ground-truth). The σ6 fit introduces eight fitted couplings.

free parameters (8)
  • mσ = 492.4 MeV
    Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.
  • gσ = -9.93
    Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.
  • gω = 12.86
    Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.
  • gρ = 3.89
    Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.
  • gs3 = 1743
    Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.
  • gs4 = -0.62
    Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.
  • c3 = 107.6
    Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.
  • gs6 = -2.9e-4 MeV^-2
    Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Mean-field (Hartree) approximation for the RMF model: meson fields replaced by their expectation values; Fock terms neglected.
    Sec. V.A states 'The current skill retains only the direct (Hartree) contributions'.
  • standard math TOV equations describe hydrostatic equilibrium of static neutron stars in general relativity.
    Sec. V.B uses the TOV equation as the stellar structure model.
  • domain assumption BPS crust matched to the core at n_b = 0.08 fm^-3.
    Sec. VI.A: 'the fixed crust–core matching at n_b = 0.08 fm^-3'.
  • domain assumption β-equilibrium and charge neutrality in the stellar interior.
    Sec. III: 'under charge neutrality and β-equilibrium'.
  • domain assumption Uniform priors within allowed parameter ranges in the Bayesian analysis.
    Sec. V.C: 'the prior (temporarily taken as uniform within the allowed ranges for simplicity)'.
  • ad hoc to paper The GQHD Lagrangian (Eq. 2) is general enough to contain TM1, NL3, and FSU as special cases.
    Sec. III states this without proof; it is the substrate on which the skill operates.
  • ad hoc to paper Benchmark ground truth is defined as the output of the tool stack itself, not an external measurement.
    Sec. VII: 'the correct value of any NM or NS observable for a given Lagrangian is fixed by the field equations and computed by the tool stack itself'.
  • domain assumption The empirical constraints in Eq. (8) are imposed at 1σ and represent the complete dataset for the σ6 fit.
    Sec. VI.B lists the constraints used in the χ² objective.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18470 in / 17412 out tokens · 147586 ms · 2026-08-02T03:16:41.275349+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Constraining the equation of state of dense matter requires confronting effective models with massive data that spans many orders of magnitude in scale, from sub-saturation nuclear matter properties to the masses, radii, and tidal deformabilities of neutron stars. Exploring the high-dimensional coupling space of such a model and fine tuning it against all of these constraints is a labor- and time-intensive task. We present \textsc{NNStar}, an end-to-end artificial-intelligence agent that automates this workflow. Rather than a bespoke application, \textsc{NNStar} is delivered as a portable \emph{skill} for an open large-language-model (LLM) agent platform -- a self-describing module that pairs worked usage conventions with symbolic and numerical physics engines that (i) build a relativistic mean-field model directly from a Lagrangian, (ii) solve the mean-field equations of motion and evaluate the saturation properties, (iii) construct the $\beta$-equilibrium equation of state, splice it to a crust, and integrate the Tolman--Oppenheimer--Volkoff equations, and (iv) score the resulting predictions through a Bayesian joint analysis against nuclear matter and astrophysical observations. The agent can read a model, fit its parameters, and report the full set of nuclear matter and neutron star observables without human intervention. \textsc{NNStar} therefore provides a new, AI-driven framework for analyzing nuclear matter and neutron-star observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13930 by Jia-Ying Xiong, Yao Ma, Yong-Liang Ma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Mass–radius curves for TM1, NL3, and FSU [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Mass–radius curves of the original TM1 (solid) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

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

90 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Fukushima and C

    K. Fukushima and C. Sasaki, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.72, 99 (2013), arXiv:1301.6377 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    J. W. Holt, M. Rho, and W. Weise, Phys. Rept.621, 2 (2016), arXiv:1411.6681 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, and T. Takatsuka, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 056902 (2018), arXiv:1707.04966 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Ma and M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    G. F. Burgio, H. J. Schulze, I. Vidana, and J. B. Wei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.120, 103879 (2021), arXiv:2105.03747 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Ma and M

    Y.-L. Ma and M. Rho, AAPPS Bull.31, 16 (2021), arXiv:2103.00744 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Brandes and W

    L. Brandes and W. Weise, Symmetry16, 111 (2024), arXiv:2312.11937 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    A. P. Gupta, Int. J. Sci. Res. Eng. Mgmt10, 1 (2026)

    2026

  9. [9]

    Demorest, T

    P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, and J. Hessels, Nature467, 1081 (2010)

    2010

  10. [10]

    Antoniadiset al., Science340, 6131 (2013)

    J. Antoniadiset al., Science340, 6131 (2013)

    2013

  11. [11]

    Fonsecaet al., Astrophys

    E. Fonsecaet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L12 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  13. [13]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018)

    2018

  14. [14]

    Vinciguerraet al., Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Salmiet al., Astrophys

    T. Salmiet al., Astrophys. J.974, 294 (2024), arXiv:2406.14466 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Choudhuryet al., Astrophys

    D. Choudhuryet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L20 (2024), arXiv:2407.06789 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    A NICER view of the 1.4 solar-mass edge-on pulsar PSR J0614–3329,

    L. Mauviardet al., “A NICER view of the 1.4 solar-mass edge-on pulsar PSR J0614–3329,” (2025), arXiv:2506.14883 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, S. S. Avancini, B. V. Carlson, A. Delfino, D. P. Menezes, C. Providˆ encia, S. Typel, and J. R. Stone, Phys. Rev. C90, 055203 (2014), arXiv:1405.3633 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  19. [19]

    J. M. Lattimer and Y. Lim, The Astrophysical Journal 771, 51 (2013)

    2013

  20. [20]

    Danielewicz and J

    P. Danielewicz and J. Lee, Nucl. Phys. A922, 1 (2014), arXiv:1307.4130 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    Le F` evre, Y

    A. Le F` evre, Y. Leifels, W. Reisdorf, J. Aichelin, and C. Hartnack, Nucl. Phys. A945, 112 (2016), arXiv:1501.05246 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 232502 (2013), arXiv:1308.3664 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  23. [23]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Vaswani, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

    A. Vaswani, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    Radovic, M

    A. Radovic, M. Williams, D. Rousseau, M. Kagan, D. Bonacorsi, A. Himmel, A. Aurisano, K. Terao, and T. Wongjirad, Nature560, 41 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    Carleo, I

    G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, and L. Zdeborov´ a, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 045002 (2019), arXiv:1903.10563 [physics.comp-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Goodfellow, J

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Ben- gio, Communications of the ACM63, 139 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    Boehnleinet al., Rev

    A. Boehnleinet al., Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 031003 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    K. Zhou, L. Wang, L.-G. Pang, and S. Shi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.135, 104084 (2024), arXiv:2303.15136 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, and K. Murase, Phys. Rev. D101, 054016 (2020), arXiv:1903.03400 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Wang, Y.-G

    R. Wang, Y.-G. Ma, R. Wada, L.-W. Chen, W.-B. He, H.-L. Liu, and K.-J. Sun, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043202 (2020), arXiv:2010.15043 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Morawski and M

    F. Morawski and M. Bejger, Astron. Astrophys.642, A78 (2020), arXiv:2006.07194 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    M. U. Anil, K. Banerjee, T. Malik, and C. Providˆ encia, JCAP01, 045 (2022), arXiv:2004.14196 [physics.comp- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    X. H. Wu, Z. X. Ren, and P. W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 105, L031303 (2022), arXiv:2105.07696 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Han, J.-L

    M.-Z. Han, J.-L. Jiang, S.-P. Tang, and Y.-Z. Fan, As- trophys. J.919, 11 (2021), arXiv:2103.05408 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, L. D. McLerran, and M. Praszalowicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 252702 (2022), arXiv:2207.06753 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    S. Soma, L. Wang, S. Shi, H. St¨ ocker, and K. Zhou, JCAP08, 071 (2022), arXiv:2201.01756 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Omana Kuttan, J

    M. Omana Kuttan, J. Steinheimer, K. Zhou, and H. Stoecker, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 202303 (2023), arXiv:2211.11670 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    W. He, Q. Li, Y. Ma, Z. Niu, J. Pei, and Y. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 282001 (2023), arXiv:2301.06396 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Guo, J.-Y

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Chatterjee, H

    S. Chatterjee, H. Sudhakaran, and R. Mallick, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1291 (2024), arXiv:2302.13648 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    He, Y.-G

    W.-B. He, Y.-G. Ma, L.-G. Pang, H.-C. Song, and K. Zhou, Nucl. Sci. Tech.34, 88 (2023), arXiv:2303.06752 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    L.-J. Guo, Y. Ma, Y.-L. Ma, R.-X. Wu, and Y.-L. Wu, (2024), arXiv:2410.06088 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Y¨ uksel, D

    E. Y¨ uksel, D. Soydaner, and H. Bahtiyar, Phys. Rev. C 109, 064322 (2024), arXiv:2401.02824 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Ventagli and I

    G. Ventagli and I. D. Saltas, JCAP01, 073 (2025), arXiv:2405.17908 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Ferreira and M

    M. Ferreira and M. Bejger, Phys. Rev. D111, 023035 (2025), arXiv:2403.14266 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    W. Zhou, H. Shen, J. Hu, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043017 (2024), arXiv:2407.11447 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    N. K. Patra, T. Malik, H. Pais, K. Zhou, B. K. Agrawal, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Lett. B865, 139470 (2025), arXiv:2502.20226 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Kovlakas, D

    K. Kovlakas, D. De Grandis, and N. Rea, Astron. Astro- phys.701, A267 (2025), arXiv:2509.03090 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    W. Liu, L. Wang, and Z. Zhu, (2026), arXiv:2604.05428 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    J. D. Baker, C. A. Bertulani, and R. V. Lobato, (2026), arXiv:2604.24949 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    Bezerra, V

    G. Bezerra, V. Dexheimer, and R. Negreiros, (2026), arXiv:2605.31198 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. Narasimhan, and Y. Cao, (2022), arXiv:2210.03629 [cs.CL]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Schick, J

    T. Schick, J. Dwivedi-Yu, R. Dess ` ı, R. Raileanu, 14 M. Lomeli, L. Zettlemoyer, N. Cancedda, and T. Scialom, (2023), arXiv:2302.04761 [cs.CL]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Zheng, Z

    T. Zheng, Z. Deng, H. T. Tsang, W. Wang, J. Bai, Z. Wang, and Y. Song, (2025), arXiv:2505.13259 [cs.CL]

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    A. M. Bran, S. Cox, O. Schilter, C. Baldassari, A. D. White, and P. Schwaller, Nature Mach. Intell.6, 525 (2024), arXiv:2304.05376 [physics.chem-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    D. A. Boiko, R. MacKnight, B. Kline, and G. Gomes, Nature624, 570 (2023)

    2023

  58. [58]

    C. Lu, C. Lu, R. T. Lange, J. Foerster, J. Clune, and D. Ha, (2024), arXiv:2408.06292 [cs.AI]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Yamada, R

    Y. Yamada, R. T. Lange, C. Lu, S. Hu, C. Lu, J. Foerster, J. Clune, and D. Ha, (2025), arXiv:2504.08066 [cs.AI]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Introducing the Model Context Protocol,

    Anthropic, “Introducing the Model Context Protocol,”https://www.anthropic.com/news/ model-context-protocol(2024)

    2024

  61. [61]

    Equipping agents for the real world with Agent Skills,

    Anthropic, “Equipping agents for the real world with Agent Skills,”https://agentskills.io(2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    Y. Zou, A. H. Cheng, A. Aldossary, J. Bai, S. X. Leong, J. A. Campos-Gonzalez-Angulo, C. Choi, C. T. Ser, G. Tom, A. Wang, Z. Zhang, I. Yakavets, H. Hao, C. Crebolder, V. Bernales, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Matter (2025), 10.1016/j.matt.2025.102263, arXiv:2505.02484 [cs.AI]

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    N. J. Szymanski, B. Rendy, Y. Fei, R. E. Kumar,et al., Nature624, 86 (2023)

    2023

  64. [64]

    Ma, Y.-L

    Y. Ma, Y.-L. Ma, and J.-Y. Xiong, (2026), arXiv:2603.01933 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    Sugahara and H

    Y. Sugahara and H. Toki, Nucl. Phys. A579, 557 (1994)

    1994

  66. [66]

    G. A. Lalazissis, J. Konig, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 55, 540 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9607039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  67. [67]

    B. G. Todd-Rutel and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 122501 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0504034

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  68. [68]

    Bedaque and A

    P. Bedaque and A. W. Steiner, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 031103 (2015), arXiv:1408.5116 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  69. [69]

    McLerran and S

    L. McLerran and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 122701 (2019), arXiv:1811.12503 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [70]

    H. Tan, J. Noronha-Hostler, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 261104 (2020), arXiv:2006.16296 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  71. [71]

    Altiparmak, C

    S. Altiparmak, C. Ecker, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett.939, L34 (2022), arXiv:2203.14974 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  72. [72]

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

    1974

  73. [73]

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

    1986

  74. [74]

    Bouyssy, J

    A. Bouyssy, J. F. Mathiot, N. Van Giai, and S. Marcos, Phys. Rev. C36, 380 (1987)

    1987

  75. [75]

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

    1939

  76. [76]

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

    1939

  77. [77]

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

    1971

  78. [78]

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

    1977

  79. [79]

    Bayes, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London53, 370 (1763)

    T. Bayes, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London53, 370 (1763)

  80. [80]

    Dutra, O

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

Showing first 80 references.