Exploring the limits of nucleonic metamodelling using different relativistic density functionals

Chiranjib Mondal; Prasanta Char

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Exploring the limits of nucleonic metamodelling using different relativistic density functionals

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

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

Pith's one-line read Two families of neutron-star models that give the same mass, radius, and tidal deformability can still disagree sharply on the proton fraction, so composition is hidden from beta-equilibrated observations.

desk verdict Useful head-to-head of TW and GDFM metamodels, but the TW prior ranges in Table II appear to be GDFM ranges permuted and likely drive the headline proton-fraction contrast. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04211 v1 pith:4ESWGTGE submitted 2025-02-06 nucl-th astro-ph.HE

Prasanta Char , Chiranjib Mondal This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-thastro-ph.HE

keywords neutronstarequationofstaterelativisticmean-fieldmodelsdensity-dependentcouplingsprotonfractionbetaequilibriumBayesianinferencetidaldeformabilitymetamodelling

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

Neutron-star matter is believed to be in beta equilibrium, where weak interactions fix the proportion of protons to neutrons, and this paper asks whether that proportion can be read off from observations. Using two families of density-dependent relativistic mean-field functionals, TW and GDFM, the authors generate large Bayesian ensembles of equations of state filtered by nuclear experiments, chiral effective field theory, and astrophysical constraints. The two families produce nearly identical pressure-density relations, mass-radius sequences, and tidal deformabilities, but their high-density proton fractions are very different: GDFM explores values above 0.3 while TW stays near 0.12-0.2. The paper concludes that beta-equilibrated observables masquerade the composition, so determining what neutron stars are made of requires non-equilibrium signals such as cooling or transport.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the metamodelled equation of state: instead of fitting a single parameter set, each functional family is turned into an ensemble by varying the density-dependent meson-nucleon couplings within assigned ranges, and the ensemble is then weighted by Bayesian inference against nuclear and astrophysical constraints. The two families differ in how the couplings depend on baryon density: the TW form uses rational functions with a single exponential rho coupling, while the GDFM form uses exponentials with more independent parameters in the rho sector. That extra isovector freedom is what lets GDFM produce a wider symmetry energy $E_{\rm sym}(n_B)$ and hence a wider proton fraction $x_p$ at $\beta$ equilibrium. The $\beta$-equilibrated observables, however, depend on the total energy density and pressure, not on $x_p$ separately, so the two ensembles remain observationally degenerate. The argument therefore identifies the proton fraction, mediated by the density dependence of the symmetry energy, as the hidden variable that structure measurements cannot see.

What would settle it

Take the TW functional and resample it with the same broad isovector coupling ranges used for GDFM (or with the GDFM coupling form in the rho sector), then look at the posterior proton fraction near $n_B \approx 0.6$ fm${}^{-3}$; a broadening toward 0.3 or higher would show the proton-fraction contrast is a prior artifact. Alternatively, search for any $\beta$-equilibrated observable that responds to a change in proton fraction while the pressure and energy density are held fixed; the paper's masquerading conclusion predicts that no such observable exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the composition of neutron-star matter is not imprinted on the structure that beta-equilibrated matter produces. The TW and GDFM relativistic functionals, when treated in the same metamodelling scheme with the same nuclear-physics-informed priors and the same astrophysical filters, give overlapping posteriors for the equation of state, the speed of sound, the mass-radius relation, and the mass-tidal-deformability relation. Yet the same posteriors show the GDFM functional reaching proton fractions above 0.3 at high density while the TW posterior is confined to about 0.12-0.2. Because both composition windows survive every applied constraint, the paper concludes that the composition is masqueraded in beta equilibrium and that previous claims that it can be extracted from beta-equilibrated equations of state are not supported, at least when the training or model family has narrow composition freedom.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the parameter ranges assigned to each model in Table II fairly represent what that model family can do; in particular, if the TW rho-coupling parameters had been given as much freedom as the GDFM ones, the claimed narrowness of the TW proton fraction might disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Current and near-future mass, radius, and tidal-deformability measurements cannot decide between the two composition scenarios, because both posteriors satisfy the same observational constraints.
Machine-learning attempts to infer composition from beta-equilibrated equations of state will inherit the composition range of the training model family; training only on narrow-composition functionals will bias the inferred proton fraction.
Non-equilibrium phenomena such as cooling, neutrino emissivity, magnetic-field evolution, and merger ejecta become the only promising channels for pinning down composition.
The unified crust-core equation of state built with the same nuclear-matter parameters remains causal over the full density range, making the posterior ensembles usable in dynamical simulations of mergers and supernovae.

Reading between the lines

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

Table II gives identical numerical bounds to differently named parameters of the two models; if those bounds are not calibrated separately for each Lagrangian, part of the GDFM/TW contrast in isovector freedom may be an artifact of prior choice rather than a structural property of the functionals.
A direct test would be to run the TW functional with the GDFM coupling form or with a wider rho-coupling prior; the composition-masquerading conclusion would likely survive, but the claimed difference between the two model classes might not.
Should future cooling or transport observations favour a high proton fraction, the GDFM family would be the viable class, while a low proton fraction would favour TW-like dynamics; structure observations alone would have no say in that choice.
The same blind-spot argument should apply even more strongly to non-nucleonic degrees of freedom such as hyperons or quark matter, where beta-equilibrated structure can stay unchanged while the composition changes drastically.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know about this one. First, it is the first head-to-head comparison of TW and GDFM density-dependent relativistic mean-field models inside the same Bayesian metamodelling pipeline, and the M-R and M-Lambda posteriors are nearly identical across the two families. Second, the headline proton-fraction contrast is far less trustworthy than it looks, because the TW parameter ranges in Table II look like the GDFM ranges permuted by hand.

What the paper does well: the two-step Bayesian workflow is standard and clearly described, the switch from pass-band to Gaussian chi-EFT filtering is a genuine improvement over earlier work, and the unified EOS construction is careful. The correlation plots are useful. The authors also correctly note the implication for ML-based composition inference: if training sets are built from one RMF family, the inferred composition may be biased.

Now the soft spots. In Table II, TW Gamma_sigma, Gamma_omega, Gamma_rho, b_sigma, c_sigma, c_omega, and a_rho are numerically identical to GDFM a_sigma, b_sigma, c_sigma, d_sigma, a_omega, b_omega, and c_omega, respectively. Concretely, TW a_rho, which is the exponent in Eq. (4) controlling how fast the rho coupling drops with density, is confined to [5.0098, 8.2559] – the same interval as GDFM's c_omega. In the standard TW parametrization that exponent is around 0.5–1, and a value of 5–8 produces a strongly suppressed symmetry energy at high density, which keeps the proton fraction low. GDFM's a_rho spans [-1,1], allowing the high proton fractions in Fig. 7. So the 'vastly different' composition is at least partly manufactured by the prior choice. There is no sensitivity study showing that a wider, physically motivated TW a_rho would still yield proton fractions below 0.2. Also, the GDFM scaling density n0 in Eq. (5) is never quoted, so that part of the model is not reproducible as written.

That said, the weaker conclusion – that beta-equilibrated NS observables do not reveal the composition – does not fall apart. The GDFM ensemble alone provides a wide composition spread that maps onto almost the same M-R and M-Lambda region, so the masquerade point survives even if the TW comparison is unfair. The paper overstates the model-family distinction, though, and this needs to be fixed.

Worth refereeing? Yes. The topic is relevant, the pipeline is competently executed, and the flaws are correctable. I would want a derivation or citation for the TW prior ranges, a sensitivity test on the rho coupling, and a stated value of n0. As written it is a conditional. I would not cite the quantitative proton-fraction contrast until that is sorted, but the qualitative masquerade message is already established elsewhere and this paper is a reasonable addition to that thread.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Bayesian metamodeling analysis of two density-dependent relativistic mean-field model classes, TW and GDFM, applied to neutron-star matter. The authors construct unified equations of state, impose nuclear physics constraints (nuclear empirical parameters, chi-EFT, AME2016 masses) and astrophysical constraints (mass, radius, tidal deformability), and compute posteriors for nuclear matter parameters, pressure, speed of sound, symmetry energy, proton fraction, mass-radius, and mass-tidal-deformability relations. The central finding is that the two model classes yield very similar beta-equilibrated EOS and neutron-star structure posteriors while producing markedly different proton-fraction distributions at high density, which the authors interpret as evidence that composition cannot be probed by beta-equilibrium neutron-star observables.

Significance. If the result is robust, the paper provides a strong concrete demonstration of composition degeneracy in beta-equilibrated neutron-star observables, complementing earlier analytic arguments and with direct implications for machine-learning attempts to infer composition from M-R or tidal data. The methodological steps—unified crust-core matching and a Bayesian pipeline with nested sampling—are standard and clearly described. However, the central compositional contrast appears to be strongly shaped by the prior ranges in Table II, particularly the asymmetric treatment of the TW rho-coupling parameter, and the GDFM scaling density n0 is never quoted; these issues currently prevent the paper from fully establishing its main claim.

major comments (3)

[Table II and Section II.B] The TW parameter ranges in Table II appear to be a direct permutation of the GDFM ranges: TW Gamma_sigma, Gamma_omega, Gamma_rho, b_sigma, c_sigma, c_omega, and a_rho take numerical values identical to GDFM a_sigma, b_sigma, c_sigma, d_sigma, a_omega, b_omega, and c_omega, respectively. In particular, the TW density-dependent rho-coupling parameter a_rho is restricted to [5.0097963, 8.2559356], whereas the GDFM a_rho is allowed to vary over [-1,1]. Since a_rho in Eq. (4) controls the density dependence of the rho-meson coupling, and hence the high-density symmetry energy and proton fraction, this asymmetric prior choice could directly produce the narrow TW proton-fraction posteriors seen in Fig. 7. The authors should provide a derivation or explicit citation for the TW ranges, and should present a sensitivity analysis that explores wider TW a_rho ranges (for example, ranges consistent with the Lsym prior in Table I) to demonstrate that the compositional contrast is a property of the Lagrangian families and not an artifact of the chosen bounds. Without this, the claim that the two models explore vastly different composition windows is not established.
[Eq. (5) and Section II.A] The GDFM density dependence in Eq. (5) involves a scaling density n0 that is stated to be different from nsat but is never given a numerical value anywhere in the manuscript. This is a necessary parameter for reproducing the GDFM model and for interpreting the parameter ranges in Table II. The authors should state the value (or the source reference where it is defined) and, if the value affects the inferred posteriors, discuss its role. At minimum, the manuscript is not self-contained without this value.
[Section II.B and Figs. 1-2] No sensitivity analysis is provided for the choices of prior boundaries for the model parameters. The posterior distributions of the nuclear matter parameters and, most importantly, of the proton fraction depend on the prior ranges in Table II, and the authors themselves note that the priors are informed by nuclear physics. However, the specific numerical bounds for GDFM and TW coupling parameters are presented without justification, and the strong model contrast in Fig. 7 could be an artifact of these bounds rather than a property of the underlying Lagrangians. The authors should show that their qualitative conclusions persist under widened priors or provide evidence that the adopted ranges are the natural or fitted ranges for these functionals. This is essential for the paper's central claim.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Introduction] The phrase "information on composition gets masqueraded in beta-equilibrium" is a nice summary, but the Introduction would benefit from an explicit statement of what would constitute a falsifiable test of the central claim, beyond the two model families studied here.
[Eq. (6)] The modified Gaussian likelihood in Eq. (6) is written with a proportionality sign and a normalization constant P_U(x_i) = 0.682/(2 sigma_i). It is not clear whether the flat-top part is normalized consistently with the Gaussian tails; this may be a minor issue but could affect the posterior weights.
[Fig. 3] The correlation matrices in Fig. 3 are very dense and the font is tiny. It would be helpful to highlight the correlations that are discussed in the text, or to provide a table of the most relevant coefficients.
[Section III] There are several typographical errors: 'relativly' (Fig. 4 discussion), 'desnity dependence' (Fig. 7 discussion), 'bahavior' (Fig. 5 discussion), 'emerging form' (should be 'emerging from'), and 'deformabality' in the Conclusion. These should be corrected.
[Section II.B] The matching procedure at the crust-core junction and at saturation is described in words but not shown numerically. A short equation or diagram showing the density intervals covered by the NR crust, NR core, and relativistic core would improve clarity, especially because the text refers to a change from Ref. [34].
[Table I] The prior range for Lsym (20-180 MeV) is very wide; since the tension between this prior and the narrow TW rho-coupling range is part of the concern raised in the major comments, it would be useful to state whether the TW ranges are intended to reproduce this Lsym range or a narrower one.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: proton fraction and M-R/M-Lambda are computed outputs of the Bayesian pipeline; self-citations are methodological and corroborative, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: it defines two relativistic density-functional classes (TW and GDFM), samples their parameters within stated prior ranges, imposes nuclear-physics and astrophysical constraints through a nested-sampling Bayesian analysis, and then computes posterior distributions of the proton fraction, mass-radius, and mass-tidal-deformability relations. The proton fraction is not a fitted parameter; it is obtained from the beta-equilibrium condition together with the symmetry-energy behavior of each sampled Lagrangian. Likewise, the M-R and M-Lambda posteriors are solved from the resulting unified EOSs. The central claim that composition is not probed by beta-equilibrated observables is supported by the direct comparison in Figs. 8 and 9: two model classes with very different proton-fraction posteriors (Fig. 7) yield overlapping M-R and M-Lambda posteriors. This is an empirical demonstration, not a circular reduction. The self-citations (notably Refs. [34] and [63]) provide the metamodelling methodology and a prior statement of the same conclusion, but the current paper independently reproduces the relevant posterior overlap, so those citations are not load-bearing evidence for the central claim. The concern that the TW proton-fraction range is strongly shaped by the chosen prior bounds in Table II is a legitimate robustness and prior-sensitivity issue, but it does not constitute circularity: no parameter is fitted to the predicted quantity, and no equation is defined in terms of the conclusion. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be identified and the score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 24 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation samples dozens of RMF coupling parameters and four higher-order crust parameters from hand-chosen intervals; the GDFM scaling density n0 is not specified. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (24)

GDFM a_sigma = 6.9837 to 10.2957
Coupling parameter sampled from Table II range; prior bound chosen by hand.
GDFM b_sigma = 2.0239 to 3.2618
Coupling parameter sampled from Table II range; prior bound chosen by hand.
GDFM c_sigma = 1.6944 to 2.7912
Coupling parameter sampled from Table II range; prior bound chosen by hand.
GDFM d_sigma = 2.4806 to 5.2779
Coupling parameter sampled from Table II range; prior bound chosen by hand.
GDFM a_omega = 9.1064 to 13.6597
Coupling parameter sampled from Table II range; prior bound chosen by hand.
GDFM b_omega = 1.5729 to 2.3594
Coupling parameter sampled from Table II range; prior bound chosen by hand.
GDFM c_omega = 5.0098 to 8.2559
Coupling parameter sampled from Table II range; prior bound chosen by hand.
GDFM d_omega = 0.6715 to 1.6719
Coupling parameter sampled from Table II range; prior bound chosen by hand.
GDFM a_rho = -1.0 to 1.0
Isovector coupling parameter; range allows sign change, giving GDFM extra symmetry-energy freedom.
GDFM b_rho = 4.8751 to 7.3127
Coupling parameter sampled from Table II range; prior bound chosen by hand.
GDFM c_rho = 0.4029 to 0.6641
Coupling parameter sampled from Table II range; prior bound chosen by hand.
GDFM d_rho = -1.2113 to 1.2092
Coupling parameter sampled from Table II range; prior bound chosen by hand.
TW Gamma_sigma = 6.9837 to 10.2957
Same numerical range as GDFM a_sigma in Table II; suspicious copy-paste.
TW Gamma_omega = 2.0239 to 3.2618
Same numerical range as GDFM b_sigma in Table II.
TW Gamma_rho = 1.6944 to 2.7912
Same numerical range as GDFM c_sigma in Table II.
TW b_sigma = 2.4806 to 5.2779
Same numerical range as GDFM d_sigma in Table II.
TW c_sigma = 9.1064 to 13.6597
Same numerical range as GDFM a_omega in Table II.
TW c_omega = 1.5729 to 2.3594
Same numerical range as GDFM b_omega in Table II.
TW a_rho = 5.0098 to 8.2559
Same numerical range as GDFM c_omega in Table II.
Qsat = -1000 to 1000 MeV
Independently sampled to build the non-relativistic crust metamodel; not derived from RMF parameters.
Zsat = -3000 to 3000 MeV
Independently sampled to build the non-relativistic crust metamodel; not derived from RMF parameters.
Qsym = -2000 to 2000 MeV
Independently sampled to build the non-relativistic crust metamodel; not derived from RMF parameters.
Zsym = -5000 to 5000 MeV
Independently sampled to build the non-relativistic crust metamodel; not derived from RMF parameters.
n0 = not stated
Scaling density in the GDFM density dependence, Eq. (5); the paper never gives its value.

assumptions (8)

standard math General relativity and TOV equations
Used to compute mass, radius, and tidal deformability from the EOS (Section II.B).
domain assumption Beta-equilibrium and charge neutrality
Composition is determined by chemical equilibrium among neutrons, protons, and electrons; the masquerade claim applies under this condition.
domain assumption Mean-field approximation for RMF Lagrangians
Meson fields are replaced by classical expectation values; standard in RMF but model-dependent.
domain assumption Nucleonic degrees of freedom only
No hyperons, quarks, or exotic matter are included; the comparison is among nucleonic models only.
domain assumption Chiral effective field theory band as constraint
The chi-EFT predictions for SNM and PNM are assumed valid in the density range used.
ad hoc to paper Prior parameter ranges in Table II are representative
No first-principles justification for the bounds; the central comparison depends on them.
ad hoc to paper Matching NR crust/core to relativistic core at saturation
The paper assumes a smooth match without discontinuities (Section II.B); this is not derived from the RMF Lagrangians.
ad hoc to paper Modified Gaussian likelihood for chi-EFT
Eqs. (6)-(8) define a passband/soft Gaussian likelihood; this choice affects the posteriors.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the limits of nucleonic metamodelling using different relativistic density functionals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ESWGTGE

@misc{pith2026250204211,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the limits of nucleonic metamodelling using different relativistic density functionals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ESWGTGE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04211}
}

abstract

In this work, we explore two classes of density dependent relativistic mean-field models, their predictions of proton fractions at high densities and neutron star structure. We have used a metamodelling approach to these relativistic density functionals. We have generated a large ensemble of models with these classes and then applied constraints from theoretical and experimental nuclear physics and astrophysical observations. We find that both models produce similar equations of state and neutron star mass-radius sequences. But, their underlying compositions, denoted by the proton fraction in this case, are vastly different. This reinstates previous findings that information on composition gets masqueraded in $\beta$-equilibrium. Additional observations of non-equilibrium phenomena are necessary to pin it down.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04211 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Probability distributions of isoscalar NMPs for GDFM and TW, and their correlation contours within the 90% CI. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The same as Fig. 1 but for the isovector NMPs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Pearson correlation coefficients between the different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Contours of pressure at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as Fig. 4, but for proton fraction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as Fig. 4, but for energy per particle of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Mass-tidal deformability relations corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Distribution of maximum masses, central densities of maximum mass stars, the distributions of the central densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. Pearson correlation coefficients among NMPs and some selected NS properties for GDFM (left panel) and TW (right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Bayesian inferences on covariant density functionals from multimessenger astrophysical data: The impacts of likelihood functions of low density matter constraints
nucl-th 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Using a uniform instead of Gaussian likelihood for low-density nuclear constraints leaves neutron star radii and masses nearly unchanged, but shifts the inferred nuclear incompressibility.
Probing Neutron Star Interiors and the Properties of Cold Ultra-dense Matter with the SKAO
astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 3.5 of 10

SKAO's sensitivity, surveys and sub-arraying will deliver tighter NS mass, MoI, spin, glitch and precession constraints that, with X-ray and GW data, probe cold ultra-dense matter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Demorest, T

P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, and J. Hessels, Nature 467, 1081 (2010), arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2010
[2]

Antoniadis et al

J. Antoniadis et al. , Science 340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2013
[3]

Fonseca et al

E. Fonseca et al. , Astrophys. J. 832, 167 (2016), arXiv:1603.00545 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2016
[4]

Arzoumanian et al

Z. Arzoumanian et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 235, 37 (2018), arXiv:1801.01837 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2018
[5]

H. T. Cromartie et al. , Nature Astron. 4, 72 (2019), arXiv:1904.06759 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2019
[6]

Fonseca et al

E. Fonseca et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, L12 (2021), arXiv:2104.00880 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2021
[7]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2017
[8]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi GBM, INTEGRAL, IceCube, AstroSat Cadmium Zinc Telluride Imager Team, IPN, Insight-Hxmt, ANTARES, Swift, AGILE Team, 1M2H Team, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM, DES, DLT40, GRA WITA, Fermi-LAT, ATCA, ASKAP, Las Cumbres Observatory Group, OzGrav, DWF (Deeper Wider Faster Program), AST3, CAAS- TRO, VINROUGE, MASTER...

arXiv 2017

Show all 67 references

[9]

T. E. Riley et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L21 (2019), arXiv:1912.05702 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[10]

M. C. Miller et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L24 (2019), arXiv:1912.05705 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[11]

T. E. Riley et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L27 (2021), arXiv:2105.06980 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[12]

M. C. Miller et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L28 (2021), arXiv:2105.06979 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[13]

Choudhury et al., Astrophys

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

2024 arXiv
[14]

N. K. Glendenning, Compact stars: Nuclear physics, par- ticle physics, and general relativity (New York, USA: Springer, 390 p, 1997)

1997
[15]

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

1974
[16]

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

1986
[17]

Boguta and A

J. Boguta and A. R. Bodmer, Nucl. Phys. A292, 413 (1977)

1977
[18]

Oertel, M

M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015007 (2017), arXiv:1610.03361 [astro- ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[19]

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]

2014 arXiv
[20]

B. Sun, S. Bhattiprolu, and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. C 109, 055801 (2024), arXiv:2311.00843 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[21]

Fuchs, H

C. Fuchs, H. Lenske, and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C 52, 3043 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9507044

1995 arXiv
[22]

Lenske and C

H. Lenske and C. Fuchs, Phys. Lett. B 345, 355 (1995)

1995
[23]

Hofmann, C

F. Hofmann, C. M. Keil, and H. Lenske, Phys. Rev. C 64, 034314 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0007050

2001 arXiv
[24]

Hofmann, C

F. Hofmann, C. M. Keil, and H. Lenske, Phys. Rev. C 64, 025804 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0008038

2001 arXiv
[25]

Typel and H

S. Typel and H. H. Wolter, Nucl. Phys. A656, 331 (1999)

1999
[26]

Gogelein, E

P. Gogelein, E. N. E. van Dalen, C. Fuchs, and H. Muther, Phys. Rev. C 77, 025802 (2008), arXiv:0708.2867 [nucl-th]

2008 arXiv
[27]

Pe˜ na Arteaga, S

D. Pe˜ na Arteaga, S. Goriely, and N. Chamel, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 320 (2016)

2016
[28]

G. A. Lalazissis and P. Ring, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 229 (2019)

2019
[29]

Taninah, B

A. Taninah, B. Osei, A. V. Afanasjev, U. C. Per- era, and S. Teeti, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024321 (2024), arXiv:2406.01896 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[30]

Hempel, T

M. Hempel, T. Fischer, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and M. Liebendorfer, Astrophys. J. 748, 70 (2012), arXiv:1108.0848 [astro-ph.HE]

2012 arXiv
[31]

Banik, M

S. Banik, M. Hempel, and D. Bandyopadhyay, Astro- phys. J. Suppl. 214, 22 (2014), arXiv:1404.6173 [astro- ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[32]

Typel, Particles 1, 3 (2018)

S. Typel, Particles 1, 3 (2018)

2018
[33]

S. S. Avancini, L. Brito, J. R. Marinelli, D. P. Menezes, M. M. W. de Moraes, C. Providencia, and A. M. Santos, Phys. Rev. C 79, 035804 (2009), arXiv:0812.3170 [nucl- th]

2009 arXiv
[34]

P. Char, C. Mondal, F. Gulminelli, and M. Oertel, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103045 (2023), arXiv:2307.12364 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[35]

Scurto, H

L. Scurto, H. Pais, and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103015 (2024), arXiv:2402.15548 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[36]

Margueron, R

J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C97, 025805 (2018), arXiv:1708.06894 [nucl- th]

2018 arXiv
[37]

Margueron, R

J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C97, 025806 (2018), arXiv:1708.06895 [nucl- th]

2018 arXiv
[38]

Margueron and F

J. Margueron and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C99, 025806 (2019), arXiv:1807.01729 [nucl-th]. 11

2019 arXiv
[39]

I. Tews, T. Kr¨ uger, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 032504 (2013), arXiv:1206.0025 [nucl-th]

2013 arXiv
[40]

Hebeler, J

K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, Astrophys. J. 773, 11 (2013), arXiv:1303.4662 [astro-ph.SR]

2013 arXiv
[41]

J. E. Lynn, I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, K. E. Schmidt, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 062501 (2016), arXiv:1509.03470 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[42]

Drischler, K

C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 042501 (2019), arXiv:1710.08220 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[43]

Carbone and A

A. Carbone and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 100, 025805 (2019), arXiv:1904.00924 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[44]

Leonhardt, M

M. Leonhardt, M. Pospiech, B. Schallmo, J. Braun, C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 142502 (2020), arXiv:1907.05814 [nucl-th]

2020 arXiv
[45]

This is an improvement over our previous work, where random sampling was used to create a large sample of model pa- rameters satisfying those constraints

to get an optimized space for coupling parameters and subsequently the NMPs derived from them. This is an improvement over our previous work, where random sampling was used to create a large sample of model pa- rameters satisfying those constraints. Then, we have cal- culated ...
[46]

S. Huth, C. Wellenhofer, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 103, 025803 (2021), arXiv:2009.08885 [nucl-th]

2021 arXiv
[47]

Gorda, O

T. Gorda, O. Komoltsev, and A. Kurkela, Astrophys. J. 950, 107 (2023), arXiv:2204.11877 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[48]

Traversi, P

S. Traversi, P. Char, and G. Pagliara, Astrophys. J. 897, 165 (2020), arXiv:2002.08951 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[49]

Malik, M

T. Malik, M. Ferreira, B. K. Agrawal, and C. Providˆ encia, Astrophys. J. 930, 17 (2022), arXiv:2201.12552 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[50]

Z. Zhu, A. Li, and T. Liu, Astrophys. J. 943, 163 (2023), arXiv:2211.02007 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[51]

M. V. Beznogov and A. R. Raduta, Phys. Rev. C 107, 045803 (2023), arXiv:2212.07168 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[52]

Malik, M

T. Malik, M. Ferreira, M. B. Albino, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103018 (2023), arXiv:2301.08169 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[53]

Salinas and J

M. Salinas and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 107, 045802 (2023), arXiv:2301.09692 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[54]

Huang, G

C. Huang, G. Raaijmakers, A. L. Watts, L. Tolos, and C. Providˆ encia, (2023), arXiv:2303.17518 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[55]

Providˆ encia, T

C. Providˆ encia, T. Malik, M. B. Albino, and M. Ferreira, (2023), arXiv:2307.05086 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[56]

J.-J. Li, Y. Tian, and A. Sedrakian, (2024), arXiv:2412.16513 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[57]

Carvalho, M

V. Carvalho, M. Ferreira, T. Malik, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043031 (2023), arXiv:2306.06929 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[58]

Carvalho, M

V. Carvalho, M. Ferreira, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123038 (2024), arXiv:2401.05770 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[59]

Dinh Thi, C

H. Dinh Thi, C. Mondal, and F. Gulminelli, Universe 7 (2021), 10.3390/universe7100373

2021 doi
[60]

Mondal and F

C. Mondal and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C 107, 015801 (2023), arXiv:2209.05177 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[61]

Buchner, A

J. Buchner, A. Georgakakis, K. Nandra, L. Hsu, C. Rangel, M. Brightman, A. Merloni, M. Salvato, J. Donley, and D. Kocevski, Astron. Astrophys. 564, A125 (2014), arXiv:1402.0004 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[62]

M. Wang, G. Audi, F. G. Kondev, W. J. Huang, S. Naimi, and X. Xu, Chin. Phys. C 41, 030003 (2017)

2017
[63]

Carreau, F

T. Carreau, F. Gulminelli, and J. Margueron, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 188 (2019), arXiv:1902.07032 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[64]

Mondal and F

C. Mondal and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. D 105, 083016 (2022), arXiv:2111.04520 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[65]

R. J. Furnstahl, B. D. Serot, and H.-B. Tang, Nucl. Phys. A 615, 441 (1997), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.A 640, 505–505 (1998)], arXiv:nucl-th/9608035

1997 arXiv
[66]

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

2005 arXiv
[67]

Xie and B.-A

W.-J. Xie and B.-A. Li, Astrophys. J. 899, 4 (2020), arXiv:2005.07216 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Demorest, T

P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, and J. Hessels, Nature 467, 1081 (2010), arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2010

[2] [2]

Antoniadis et al

J. Antoniadis et al. , Science 340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2013

[3] [3]

Fonseca et al

E. Fonseca et al. , Astrophys. J. 832, 167 (2016), arXiv:1603.00545 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2016

[4] [4]

Arzoumanian et al

Z. Arzoumanian et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 235, 37 (2018), arXiv:1801.01837 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2018

[5] [5]

H. T. Cromartie et al. , Nature Astron. 4, 72 (2019), arXiv:1904.06759 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2019

[6] [6]

Fonseca et al

E. Fonseca et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, L12 (2021), arXiv:2104.00880 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2021

[7] [7]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2017

[8] [8]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi GBM, INTEGRAL, IceCube, AstroSat Cadmium Zinc Telluride Imager Team, IPN, Insight-Hxmt, ANTARES, Swift, AGILE Team, 1M2H Team, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM, DES, DLT40, GRA WITA, Fermi-LAT, ATCA, ASKAP, Las Cumbres Observatory Group, OzGrav, DWF (Deeper Wider Faster Program), AST3, CAAS- TRO, VINROUGE, MASTER...

arXiv 2017