Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Dense-matter observations now constrain neutron-star equations of state, but leave the core's composition genuinely open.

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

2026-08-01 01:16 UTC pith:7CX53NY7

load-bearing objection Competent multimessenger EoS review; treat the MUSES/SQM2026 layer as unverified until the citations resolve. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25854 v1 pith:7CX53NY7 submitted 2026-07-28 nucl-th astro-ph.HE

Nuclear matter equation of state and astrophysics

Mateus Reinke Pelicer This is my paper
classification nucl-th astro-ph.HE
keywords neutron-stardense-matterhyperonsequation of statemultimessenger constraintsquark matterheavy-ion collisionsMUSES
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 is a review arguing that neutron-star masses, radii, and tidal deformabilities have tightened the cold equation of state—soft around one to two times nuclear saturation density, then stiffer—yet they do not determine what the stellar core is made of. Hyperons, deconfined quarks, quarkyonic matter, and strong first-order phase transitions each remain viable. The central push is that progress requires a unified, multidimensional description of strongly interacting matter, P(T, mu_B, mu_S, mu_Q), spanning catalyzed stars, binary mergers, and heavy-ion collisions, together with modular software that makes modeling assumptions explicit. If correct, the next discriminating power must come from combining postmerger gravitational waves, heavy-ion correlation measurements, and multidimensional equation-of-state tables, not from the cold bulk curve alone.

Core claim

The paper claims that the current multimessenger picture—relatively soft matter around n0–2n0 followed by substantial stiffening at larger density, with the equilibrium sound speed exceeding the conformal value 1/3 somewhere inside compact stars—is robust, while the microscopic composition of the core is not. Neither the presence nor the absence of quark matter can presently be inferred in a model-independent way, and hyperons, deconfined quarks, quarkyonic matter, and strong transitions all satisfy the bulk constraints. The way forward is presented as a shift from a single cold barotropic relation to a multidimensional thermodynamic potential P(T, mu_B, mu_S, mu_Q) with its derivatives, pha

What carries the argument

The central object is the multidimensional thermodynamic potential P(T, mu_B, mu_S, mu_Q), whose first derivatives give baryon, strangeness, and charge densities and entropy; it is the common language needed to connect cold catalyzed stars, finite-temperature merger matter driven out of weak equilibrium, and heavy-ion collisions. Alongside it, the equilibrium sound speed cs^2 = dP/depsilon serves as the diagnostic for how soft or stiff the equation of state is. The MUSES Calculation Engine functions as machinery that makes the often-hidden assumptions in equation-of-state construction explicit: it matches, interpolates, inverts, and differentiates tables while preserving thermodynamic consis

Load-bearing premise

The paper's synthesis depends on the conference results it describes being real, correctly performed, and accurately represented by the cited references; if a key measurement or citation proved unreliable, the claimed state of the field would need revision.

What would settle it

A future high-precision observation with clear model independence—for example, a gravitational-wave postmerger signal showing a long-lived metastable remnant that only a strong first-order quark–hadron transition can produce, or a radius measurement with negligible prior dependence that excludes all hybrid models—would overturn the paper's central claim that neither the presence nor the absence of quark matter can currently be inferred.

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

If this is right

  • If this summary is accurate, no current dataset can confirm or exclude quark matter in neutron-star cores; claims about deconfinement are not yet model-independent.
  • Heavy-ion measurements of hyperon–nucleon and hyperonic three-body correlations offer a concrete path to constrain the interactions behind the hyperon puzzle, even though they do not fix the cold equation of state by themselves.
  • Binary postmerger gravitational-wave observables—dominant frequency and collapse time—are the most promising route to sensitivity to composition and phase transitions, with thermal effects and composition-dependent weak rates still able to mimic or obscure signals.
  • Equation-of-state tables used in simulations must accurately provide first and second derivatives and handle metastable and unstable branches; limited phase-diagram coverage can contaminate heavy-ion observables such as total multiplicity at high baryon density.
  • The choice of how to match different equation-of-state pieces is a physical modeling uncertainty: it changes predicted radii by up to roughly 9 percent and maximum masses by up to roughly 4 percent.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the multidimensional program matures, joint inference across heavy-ion isobar data, merger simulations, and mass–radius measurements could break degeneracies that the cold barotropic curve alone cannot, making composition claims testable rather than philosophical.
  • The emphasis on modular, replaceable software suggests that the field's standard for a composition discovery will be systematic comparison across many model families with shared interpolation and matching tools, rather than one tuned best-fit equation of state.
  • A testable extension would be to use existing heavy-ion chemical-potential differential measurements to validate, in advance, whether the assumption of weak equilibrium used for cold stars actually fails in merger simulations with slow versus fast weak rates.
  • The reported 9 percent radius variation from matching choices implies that published radius constraints should be accompanied by equation-of-state construction systematics; otherwise apparent tensions among different observations may reflect modeling artifacts rather than new physics.

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. This paper is a review of the cold dense-matter equation of state as constrained by neutron-star observations, heavy-ion experiments, and theoretical calculations. It argues that current multimessenger data favor relatively soft matter around 1–2 times nuclear saturation density with substantial stiffening at higher density, but that these bulk constraints do not determine the microscopic composition of neutron-star cores: hyperons, deconfined quarks, quarkyonic matter, and strong first-order phase transitions all remain viable. The paper further advocates a multidimensional thermodynamic description P(T, μ_B, μ_S, μ_Q) for connecting neutron stars, mergers, and heavy-ion collisions, and presents the MUSES Calculation Engine as the necessary community infrastructure. The qualitative synthesis is consistent with the standard literature, but the paper's distinctive content—SQM2026 conference results and MUSES/Calliope developments—is supported by citations whose existence and accuracy cannot be verified from the manuscript.

Significance. If the SQM2026 reports and MUSES-related claims are accurately represented, the paper would be a timely and useful review. Its central message—that bulk EoS constraints do not fix composition, and that a multidimensional, process-dependent EoS framework is needed—is well aligned with the current direction of the field. The paper is clearly written and its mainstream astrophysical summary (Sections 1–3) is defensible and appropriately referenced. The main value would lie in the synthesis of recent SQM2026 results and the MUSES infrastructure, but that value is currently conditional on unverifiable conference reports and non-standard DOIs. The paper contains no new analysis; its contribution is as a review, and a review is only as reliable as its sources.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2–§4, Refs. [29,32,33,34,39,44,45,46]] The paper's distinctive claims about SQM2026 results and MUSES capabilities are supported only by citations that cannot be audited from this manuscript. Several DOIs do not follow standard publisher patterns (e.g., 10.1103/txbp-t8vm, 10.1103/y8tw-m4sz, 10.1103/trk9-8gph, 10.1103/2dmh-26yh, 10.1103/pvtc-zdyw), and no conference program, proceedings, or other public record is cited for the named talks (Jing Gu, Henrik Fribert, Raffaele Del Grande, et al.). Since the abstract advertises 'recent results presented at SQM2026' as part of the paper's contribution, the authors must either demonstrate that these references resolve to the claimed results or replace them with verifiable sources. Without this, the review's unique content is unsupported, even though the mainstream synthesis in Sections 1–2 would still stand.
  2. [§4, matching-sensitivity claim] The claim that changing the thermodynamic variable and density range used for smooth matching changes the 1.4 solar mass radius by 'up to approximately 9%' and the maximum mass by 'up to approximately 4%' is a headline quantitative result, but the text gives no details: how many matching prescriptions were tested, over what density range, whether the quoted spread is the full range over all tested choices, and what the baseline EoS was. Without these details the claim is not reproducible from the cited reference [43] as summarized. Please provide the concrete conditions or soften the claim to match what [43] actually demonstrates.
  3. [§4, 'These uncertainties must be regarded as part of the physical modeling'] The statement that matching ambiguities produce uncertainties that 'must be regarded as part of the physical modeling' conflates numerical/parametric matching choices with genuine physical uncertainty. If the matching procedure is intended as a proxy for missing microphysics, that argument needs to be made explicitly; otherwise the 9%/4% spread is an artifact of the construction scheme, not a physical constraint. This distinction is load-bearing for the paper's broader argument that MUSES-style multidimensional modeling is necessary to propagate uncertainties reliably.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The text has several typographical issues: 'Tolman–Oppenheimer–V olkoff' and 'stiffto' in Section 1; 'V ovchenko' for Vovchenko in Section 3; 'µ S ,0' should be 'μ_S ≠ 0' in Section 3; and reference [25] lists 'A. Collaboration, et al.' rather than a collaboration name. These should be corrected.
  2. [§4] The description of the MUSES Calculation Engine and Calliope release would benefit from a statement of version/release dates and a clear pointer to the open-source repository, rather than only to arXiv/PRD references. This would improve verifiability and reproducibility.
  3. [§2] The sentence 'Hyperons are energetically favored ... but their appearance softens the EoS in many traditional models' could be clarified to distinguish models with and without additional repulsive hyperonic three-body forces; as written it risks oversimplifying the hyperon-puzzle literature.
  4. [§5, Outlook] The outlook lists lattice QCD as an input, but the paper does not mention the current limitations of lattice QCD at finite baryon density; a one-sentence caveat would make the recommendation more balanced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the paper is a literature review whose claims are supported by external citations, and its self-citations are descriptive references to the author's own software, not derivation inputs.

full rationale

This is a review article, not a derivation. The paper's central assertions—that neutron-star constraints favor soft matter around n0–2n0 with stiffening at higher density, that quark matter is neither confirmed nor excluded model-independently, and that multidimensional EoS modeling plus shared infrastructure are needed—are supported by citations to the external literature ([1]–[28], [30]–[42]) rather than derived from new fits or calculations. The MUSES discussion in §4 cites the author's own previous work ([43], [45]) for the 9%/4% matching sensitivity and for the Calliope contamination findings, but these are presented as published results of that software, not as predictions generated by the present paper, and they are not used to derive the review's physical conclusions. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. Concerns about the verifiability of SQM2026 talks and unusual DOIs are evidence-quality or correctness risks, not circularity. Under the rule that self-citation becomes circular only when the load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation, none of the load-bearing physical summaries depend on the author's own work; they rest on independent published constraints. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

As a review, the paper introduces no free parameters. Its contribution is synthesis and software advocacy; the ledger lists the background assumptions it imports from cited analyses (TOV mapping, sound-speed bound, EFT/pQCD anchors) and the author-affiliated software entity it promotes.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Cold catalyzed neutron-star matter is barotropic; once P(ε) is specified, structure follows from the TOV equations
    Invoked in §1 to frame which observations constrain the EoS; standard and load-bearing for the inference framing.
  • domain assumption The equilibrium sound speed c_s² = dP/dε must exceed the conformal value 1/3 inside some compact stars
    §1 cites [19–21]; the 'soft near n0–2n0, stiffening at high density' picture rests on these analyses being correct.
  • domain assumption Chiral EFT around saturation density and perturbative QCD at high density are valid anchors
    §1 cites [9–12]; the review's boundary constraints depend on these external frameworks.
  • ad hoc to paper SQM2026 talks were reported faithfully
    §2–3 summarize STAR/ALICE and other presentations with no data or proceedings citations for several of them, so the review's new inputs are unverifiable as written.
invented entities (1)
  • MUSES Calculation Engine / Calliope release no independent evidence
    purpose: Proposed community-standard modular software for matching, inverting, and differentiating multidimensional EoS tables
    The review recommends MUSES as the required infrastructure, citing its own papers [40,43,44,45]; no URL, version, or commit hash is given here, so the advertised reproducibility cannot be checked from this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 7140 in / 12694 out tokens · 118915 ms · 2026-08-01T01:16:57.831637+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Neutron-star masses, radii, and inspiral tidal deformabilities now provide quantitative constraints on the cold equation of state (\eos), favoring relatively soft matter around one to two times nuclear saturation density and substantial stiffening at larger density. These bulk constraints, however, do not uniquely determine the microscopic composition of the stellar core. Hyperons, deconfined quarks, quarkyonic matter, and strong first-order phase transitions remain viable possibilities. This article summarizes the present multimessenger status and emphasizes the next challenge---a unified description of strongly interacting matter across catalyzed neutron stars, binary mergers, and heavy-ion collisions. Recent results presented at SQM2026, including new constraints on hyperon interactions and advances in multidimensional equation-of-state modeling, highlight the complementary experimental and theoretical inputs required for this program. The MUSES Calculation Engine provides modular software infrastructure for connecting these inputs to astrophysical and heavy-ion applications.

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

46 extracted references · 39 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Watts, et al., Probing the neutron star interior and the Equation of State of cold dense matter with the SKA, PoS AASKA14 (2015) 043

    A. Watts, et al., Probing the neutron star interior and the Equation of State of cold dense matter with the SKA, PoS AASKA14 (2015) 043. arXiv:1501.00042, doi:10.22323/1.215.0043

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    J. M. Lattimer, Neutron Star Physics and EOS, EPJ Web Conf. 109 (2016) 07001. doi:10.1051/epjconf/201610907001

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Antoniadis, et al., A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Binary, Science 340 (2013) 6131

    J. Antoniadis, et al., A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Binary, Science 340 (2013) 6131. arXiv:1304.6875, doi:10.1126/science.1233232

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Fonseca, et al., Refined Mass and Geometric Measurements of the High-mass PSR J0740+6620, Astrophys

    E. Fonseca, et al., Refined Mass and Geometric Measurements of the High-mass PSR J0740+6620, Astrophys. J. Lett. 915 (1) (2021) L12. arXiv:2104.00880, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    T. E. Riley, et al., A NICER View of the Massive Pulsar PSR J0740+6620 Informed by Radio Timing and XMM-Newton Spectroscopy, Astrophys. J. Lett. 918 (2) (2021) L27. arXiv:2105.06980, doi:10.3847/2041- 8213/ac0a81

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    M. C. Miller, et al., PSR J0030+0451 Mass and Radius fromNICERData and Implications for the Properties of Neutron Star Matter, Astrophys. J. Lett. 887 (1) (2019) L24. arXiv:1912.05705, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Kini, et al., A NICER View of PSR J0030+0451: Updated Constraints from 6 yr of NICER Observations, Astrophys

    Y . Kini, et al., A NICER View of PSR J0030+0451: Updated Constraints from 6 yr of NICER Observations, Astrophys. J. 1005 (2) (2026) 201. arXiv:2602.23743, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae733e

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    B. P. Abbott, et al., GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (16) (2017) 161101. arXiv:1710.05832, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Drischler, S

    C. Drischler, S. Han, S. Reddy, Large and massive neutron stars: Implications for the sound speed within QCD of dense matter, Phys. Rev. C 105 (3) (2022) 035808. arXiv:2110.14896, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.105.035808

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. W. Holt, C. Wellenhofer, Chiral Effective Field Theory and the High-Density Nuclear Equation of State, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71 (2021) 403–432. arXiv:2101.01709, doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419- 041903

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Komoltsev, A

    O. Komoltsev, A. Kurkela, How Perturbative QCD Constrains the Equation of State at Neutron-Star Densities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (20) (2022) 202701. arXiv:2111.05350, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.202701

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Gorda, O

    T. Gorda, O. Komoltsev, A. Kurkela, Ab-initio QCD Calculations Impact the Inference of the Neutron-star- matter Equation of State, Astrophys. J. 950 (2) (2023) 107. arXiv:2204.11877, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acce3a

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Landry, R

    P. Landry, R. Essick, Nonparametric inference of the neutron star equation of state from gravitational wave observations, Phys. Rev. D 99 (8) (2019) 084049. arXiv:1811.12529, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.084049. 4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Essick, P

    R. Essick, P. Landry, D. E. Holz, Nonparametric Inference of Neutron Star Composition, Equation of State, and Maximum Mass with GW170817, Phys. Rev. D 101 (6) (2020) 063007. arXiv:1910.09740, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    C. D. Capano, I. Tews, S. M. Brown, B. Margalit, S. De, S. Kumar, D. A. Brown, B. Krishnan, S. Reddy, Stringent constraints on neutron-star radii from multimessenger observations and nuclear theory, Nature Astron. 4 (6) (2020) 625–632. arXiv:1908.10352, doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1014-6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, E. Katerini, A. Kurkela, J. Nättilä, V . Paschalidis, A. Vuorinen, Multimes- senger Constraints for Ultradense Matter, Phys. Rev. X 12 (1) (2022) 011058. arXiv:2105.05132, doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.12.011058

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Legred, K

    I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, R. Essick, S. Han, P. Landry, Impact of the PSR J0740+6620 radius con- straint on the properties of high-density matter, Phys. Rev. D 104 (6) (2021) 063003. arXiv:2106.05313, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Legred, K

    I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, R. Essick, P. Landry, Implicit correlations within phenomenological paramet- ric models of the neutron star equation of state, Phys. Rev. D 105 (4) (2022) 043016. arXiv:2201.06791, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.043016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Bedaque, A

    P. Bedaque, A. W. Steiner, Sound velocity bound and neutron stars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (3) (2015) 031103. arXiv:1408.5116, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.031103

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  20. [20]

    I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, S. Reddy, Constraining the speed of sound inside neutron stars with chi- ral effective field theory interactions and observations, Astrophys. J. 860 (2) (2018) 149. arXiv:1801.01923, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac267

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Mroczek, M

    D. Mroczek, M. C. Miller, J. Noronha-Hostler, N. Yunes, Nontrivial features in the speed of sound inside neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 110 (12) (2024) 123009. arXiv:2309.02345, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Chatterjee, I

    D. Chatterjee, I. Vidaña, Do hyperons exist in the interior of neutron stars?, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (2) (2016) 29. arXiv:1510.06306, doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16029-x

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    Sedrakian, J.-J

    A. Sedrakian, J.-J. Li, F. Weber, Heavy baryons in compact stars, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 131 (2023) 104041. arXiv:2212.01086, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Fabbietti, V

    L. Fabbietti, V . Mantovani Sarti, O. Vazquez Doce, Study of the Strong Interaction Among Hadrons with Cor- relations at the LHC, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71 (2021) 377–402. arXiv:2012.09806, doi:10.1146/annurev- nucl-102419-034438

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Collaboration, et al., Unveiling the strong interaction among hadrons at the LHC, Nature 588 (2020) 232–238, [Erratum: Nature 590, E13 (2021)]

    A. Collaboration, et al., Unveiling the strong interaction among hadrons at the LHC, Nature 588 (2020) 232–238, [Erratum: Nature 590, E13 (2021)]. arXiv:2005.11495, doi:10.1038/s41586-020-3001-6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Vidana, V

    I. Vidana, V . M. Sarti, J. Haidenbauer, D. L. Mihaylov, L. Fabbietti, Neutron Star Properties and Femtoscopic Constraints, Eur. Phys. J. A 61 (3) (2025) 59. arXiv:2412.12729, doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01539-z

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    McLerran, S

    L. McLerran, S. Reddy, Quarkyonic Matter and Neutron Stars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (12) (2019) 122701. arXiv:1811.12503, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.122701

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    M. G. Alford, S. Han, K. Schwenzer, Signatures for quark matter from multi-messenger observations, J. Phys. G 46 (11) (2019) 114001. arXiv:1904.05471, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab337a

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Fujimoto, T

    Y . Fujimoto, T. Kojo, L. McLerran, Evolution of strangeness and hyperons in quarkyonic matter, Phys. Rev. C 113 (3) (2026) 035206. arXiv:2410.22758, doi:10.1103/txbp-t8vm

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    E. R. Most, L. J. Papenfort, V . Dexheimer, M. Hanauske, S. Schramm, H. Stöcker, L. Rezzolla, Signatures of quark-hadron phase transitions in general-relativistic neutron-star mergers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (6) (2019) 061101. arXiv:1807.03684, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.061101. 5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    J. L. Ripley, A. Hegade K. R., R. S. Chandramouli, N. Yunes, A constraint on the dissipative tidal deformability of neutron stars, Nature Astron. 8 (10) (2024) 1277–1283. arXiv:2312.11659, doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02323-7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Mroczek, N

    D. Mroczek, N. Yao, K. Zine, J. Noronha-Hostler, L. Brodie, V . Dexheimer, A. Haber, E. R. Most, Validity of a finite temperature expansion for dense nuclear matter, Phys. Rev. C 113 (1) (2026) 015804. arXiv:2404.01658, doi:10.1103/y8tw-m4sz

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Grefa, C

    J. Grefa, C. Y . Tsang, R. Kumar, V . Dexheimer, C. Ratti, Z. Xu, Chemical potential differentials in the QCD phase diagram from heavy-ion isobar collisions (1 2026). arXiv:2601.21232

    arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Y . Yang, N. C. Camacho, M. Hippert, J. Noronha-Hostler, Symmetry-energy expansion with strange dense matter, Phys. Rev. C 113 (4) (2026) 045805. arXiv:2504.18764, doi:10.1103/trk9-8gph

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y . Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, Y . Hidaka, A. Hiraguchi, K. Iida, Equation of state of neutron star matter and its warm extension with an interacting hadron resonance gas, Phys. Lett. B 835 (2022) 137524. arXiv:2109.06799, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137524

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    T. Moss, R. Poberezhniuk, V . V ovchenko, Quantum van der Waals quarkyonic matter at nonzero isospin asym- metry, Phys. Rev. C 111 (2) (2025) 025803. arXiv:2411.11996, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.111.025803

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Kumar, J

    R. Kumar, J. Grefa, K. Maslov, Y . Wang, A. Kumar, R. Rapp, C. Ratti, V . Dexheimer, Interacting mesons as degrees of freedom in a chiral model, Phys. Rev. D 111 (7) (2025) 074029. arXiv:2503.03057, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.074029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Jahan, A

    J. Jahan, A. Abuali, S. Borsányi, M. Kahangirwe, P. Parotto, A. Pásztor, C. Ratti, H. Shah, S. A. Trabulsi, 4D- TExS: A new 4D lattice-QCD equation of state with extended density coverage, EPJ Web Conf. 316 (2025) 06002. doi:10.1051/epjconf/202531606002

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Abuali, S

    A. Abuali, S. Borsányi, Z. Fodor, J. Jahan, M. Kahangirwe, P. Parotto, A. Pásztor, C. Ratti, H. Shah, S. A. Trabulsi, New 4D lattice QCD equation of state: Extended density coverage from a generalized T’ expansion, Phys. Rev. D 112 (5) (2025) 054502. arXiv:2504.01881, doi:10.1103/2dmh-26yh

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Cruz-Camacho, R

    N. Cruz-Camacho, R. Kumar, M. Reinke Pelicer, J. Peterson, T. A. Manning, R. Haas, V . Dexheimer, J. Noronha- Hostler, Phase stability in the three-dimensional open-source code for the chiral mean-field model, Phys. Rev. D 111 (9) (2025) 094030. arXiv:2409.06837, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.094030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    E. R. Most, A. Haber, S. P. Harris, Z. Zhang, M. G. Alford, J. Noronha, Emergence of Microphysical Bulk Vis- cosity in Binary Neutron Star Postmerger Dynamics, Astrophys. J. Lett. 967 (1) (2024) L14. arXiv:2207.00442, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad454f

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Alford, A

    M. Alford, A. Harutyunyan, A. Sedrakian, S. Tsiopelas, Bulk viscosity of two-color superconduct- ing quark matter in neutron star mergers, Phys. Rev. D 110 (6) (2024) L061303. arXiv:2407.12493, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.L061303

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Reinke Pelicer, et al., Building neutron stars with the MUSES calculation engine, Phys

    M. Reinke Pelicer, et al., Building neutron stars with the MUSES calculation engine, Phys. Rev. D 111 (10) (2025) 103037. arXiv:2502.07902, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Cruz-Camacho, C

    N. Cruz-Camacho, C. Conde-Ocazionez, V . Dexheimer, J. Noronha-Hostler, N. Yunes, Sensitivity of neutron star observables to microscopic nuclear parameters of realistic equations of state (3 2026). arXiv:2603.16019

    arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    Jahan, et al., Studying the QCD Matter produced in Heavy-Ion Collisions using the MUSES Calculation Engine (6 2026)

    J. Jahan, et al., Studying the QCD Matter produced in Heavy-Ion Collisions using the MUSES Calculation Engine (6 2026). arXiv:2606.26326

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Y . Yang, P. Garella, M. R. Khan, T. E. Restrepo, J. Grefa, J. Jahan, M. Hippert, J. Noronha, C. Ratti, R. Rouge- mont, Merging multidimensional equations of state of strongly interacting matter via a statistical mixture, Phys. Rev. D 113 (11) (2026) 114018. arXiv:2601.07987, doi:10.1103/pvtc-zdyw. 6

    arXiv 2026