Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

This paper shows that neutron-star observations can directly constrain the two-nucleon contact couplings in a chiral EFT Hamiltonian, and that next-generation detectors will constrain them strongly.

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

2026-08-04 00:34 UTC pith:5CGTWQNT

load-bearing objection A technically serious extension of the authors' emulator pipeline to NN LECs, with a genuine new inference result, but the unvalidated PNM-to-NS bridge and a double-counted pulsar constraint leave the quantitative posteriors open to challenge. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.05999 v2 pith:5CGTWQNT submitted 2026-01-09 nucl-th astro-ph.HE

Constraining Hamiltonians from chiral effective field theory with neutron-star data

Cassandra L. Armstrong , Brendan T. Reed , Tate Plohr , Henrik Rose , Soumi De , Rahul Somasundaram , Ingo Tews This is my paper
classification nucl-th astro-ph.HE
keywords chiral effective field theoryneutron star equation of statelow-energy constantsauxiliary-field diffusion Monte Carlogravitational-wave inferenceBayesian inferencenuclear Hamiltonianneural network emulators
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.

The paper attempts to close the loop between microscopic nuclear theory and neutron-star observations by turning astrophysical data into direct constraints on the coupling constants of a chiral effective field theory Hamiltonian. To make the millions of model evaluations required by Bayesian inference feasible, the authors build two emulators: a parametric-matrix-model emulator for the auxiliary-field diffusion Monte Carlo calculation of pure neutron matter, and multilayer-perceptron neural-network emulators for the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations that produce mass, radius, and tidal deformability from an equation of state. They then sample the six 'spectral' low-energy constants that enter neutron matter at next-to-next-to-leading order inside a gravitational-wave parameter-estimation pipeline, using data from the 2017 binary-neutron-star merger, pulsar mass measurements, and X-ray radius measurements of four pulsars. The main result is that current data already provide informative (if modest) constraints on the two-nucleon P-wave couplings, acting to reduce repulsion, and that simulated signals from next-generation detectors would sharpen these constraints substantially, most visibly in the 3P1 partial-wave phase shift at energies above 200 MeV.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that neutron-star observations can be used as a direct probe of the nuclear Hamiltonian itself, not just of a parameterized equation of state. The six spectral LECs d11, d22, d3, d4, d6, and d7—the combinations of two-nucleon contact operators that affect pure neutron matter at N2LO—are sampled in a Bayesian analysis alongside the usual binary parameters. The posteriors from current data show that the three-nucleon sector is parameter-free in neutron matter at this order, so all the information flows to the NN contact sector; the P-wave LECs shift toward softer repulsion, while the S-wave LECs stay at their scattering-data priors. The analysis a

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-stage emulator chain that makes direct LEC inference possible. First, a parametric matrix model (PMM) emulator—a reduced-basis-style surrogate that represents the AFDMC ground-state energy of pure neutron matter as the lowest eigenvalue of a small matrix with the same operator structure as the chiral Hamiltonian—replaces the many-body calculation, whose matrix elements are fit to roughly thirty high-fidelity AFDMC runs. This reduces the cost of one equation-of-state evaluation by eight orders of magnitude while keeping ~1% error. Second, multilayer-perceptron neural networks emulate the TOV solution, mapping the 13 parameters of each equation of state (six LECs plus me

Load-bearing premise

The paper's bridge from pure neutron matter to neutron-star matter—the nuclear meta-model calibrated on the AFDMC neutron-matter energies and a handful of symmetric-matter parameters, extended by a speed-of-sound prescription above 2 n0—must faithfully represent the full beta-equilibrated equation of state; any bias in that parametrized bridge shifts the inferred LEC posteriors even if every emulator is perfect.

What would settle it

Take the N2LO chiral Hamiltonian with the sampled LEC values and compute the beta-equilibrated EOS directly (e.g., with AFDMC for asymmetric matter at several proton fractions) between n0 and 2 n0; compare it to the meta-model prediction. If the two disagree by more than the 1% emulator accuracy, the astrophysical constraints on the LECs inherit a systematic bias. A second test: replace the speed-of-sound extension above 2 n0 with an independent high-density EOS model and check whether the LEC posteriors move significantly.

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

If this is right

  • Current multi-messenger data already extract information about two-nucleon couplings beyond what NN scattering provides, so neutron-star observations have become a supplement to laboratory nuclear physics.
  • The P-wave LECs are pulled toward softer repulsion, consistent with the soft equation of state inferred from the 2017 merger and X-ray radius measurements; the inferred 1.4-solar-mass radius is 11.6 +0.7 -0.5 km at 90% credibility.
  • The singlet S-wave couplings d22 and d3 remain at their priors, meaning present data cannot distinguish changes in those operators—a useful negative result for future work.
  • Third-generation gravitational-wave observatories would constrain the LECs strongly, with a 1.0-solar-mass binary producing tighter posteriors than a 1.4-solar-mass binary despite lower signal-to-noise ratio.
  • The 3P1 partial wave emerges as the most neutron-star-sensitive channel; its phase shift changes at energies above 200 MeV when next-generation data are included.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct consequence the authors leave implicit: the same pipeline can be rerun with the transition density, the symmetric-matter empirical parameters, or the speed-of-sound grid treated as free nuisance parameters, which would test whether the LEC constraints are robust to the modeling bridge above saturation density.
  • The result suggests that precise neutron-star radius measurements—from X-ray timing and a large sample of gravitational-wave events—effectively constitute a high-density scattering experiment on the triplet P-wave channels, potentially probing partial-wave amplitudes at laboratory energies unreachable by accelerators.
  • If the P-wave constraints survive, joint fits of chiral Hamiltonians to both scattering data and neutron-star data could alter predictions for the neutron-skin thickness of heavy nuclei, since the symmetry energy's density dependence is governed by the same isovector P-wave operators.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. This paper presents a Bayesian framework to infer six spectral NN LECs of an N2LO local chiral EFT Hamiltonian from neutron-star observations. The pipeline combines a parametric matrix model (PMM) emulator for AFDMC neutron-matter calculations, a nuclear meta-model to bridge pure neutron matter to beta-equilibrated matter, multilayer-perceptron emulators for the TOV equations, and the PyCBC code for gravitational-wave likelihoods. Priors are taken from an NN-scattering analysis [12]. The authors apply the pipeline to GW170817, the heavy-pulsar mass measurements (dominated by PSR J0740+6620), and NICER mass-radius data, obtaining posterior constraints on the LECs (notably reducing triplet-P-wave repulsion) and projecting strong constraints from next-generation GW detectors, especially on the 3P1 phase shift. The work is a significant step toward direct constraints on nuclear interactions from astrophysical data, but I identify three methodological issues that need to be addressed before the conclusions can be accepted.

Significance. If correct, this is a novel and important result. The use of two separately validated emulators (PMM ~1%; MLP ~0.01%) is a strength, and the inference is performed with standard Bayesian tools. The conclusion that current astrophysical data provide non-trivial information on NN contact LECs is falsifiable in future analyses. However, the double-counting of the maximum-mass constraint, the unvalidated meta-model bridge, and the order mismatch between the N2LO emulator and the N3LO scattering priors are load-bearing issues. Each is fixable within the scope of the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Emulators for neutron-star structure; Multimessenger Data Analysis] The authors write in the emulator section: 'We remove all samples with a maximum NS mass MTOV < 2M⊙ because the observations of heavy pulsars with masses greater than 2M⊙ rule these EOS out.' Then in the data-analysis section they 'further apply the maximum-mass constraint by comparing the predicted Mmax for each EOS to the observed neutron star masses', with the likelihood dominated by PSR J0740+6620 (2.08±0.07 M⊙). This conditions on the same dataset twice: once as a hard prior (Mmax>2) and once as a likelihood. In Bayesian terms, the posterior should not include both a filter based on the data and a likelihood from the same data. The double-counting will artificially shrink the posteriors and may bias the inferred LECs in Fig. 1. Please rerun the analysis without the hard cut (or without the maximum-mass likelihood) and quantify the effect on the LEC posteriors.
  2. [Neutron-Star Equations of State] The PMM output for pure neutron matter is extended to beta-equilibrated neutron-star matter using the nuclear meta-model of Margueron et al. The symmetric-matter NEPs (K_sat, Q_sat, Z_sat) are sampled from Gaussian priors that are not derived from the chiral Hamiltonian under study. The isospin-asymmetric EOS entering the TOV equations is therefore not computed from the Hamiltonian; it is an empirical interpolation between a Hamiltonian-computed neutron-matter curve and an arbitrarily sampled symmetric-matter curve. No check is reported that this meta-model bridge reproduces the Hamiltonian's beta-equilibrated EOS in the density range most relevant for radii and tidal deformabilities (approximately 0.1–0.5 fm^-3). If the meta-model's symmetry energy differs from that of the chiral Hamiltonian, the inferred LEC posteriors (Fig. 1) will be biased even with perfect emulators. Please validat
  3. [Approach; Emulators for Dense Matter] The emulator is explicitly for 'local chiral EFT Hamiltonians at N2LO', but the scattering priors are taken from Ref. [12], which fits 'maximally local two-nucleon interactions at N3LO'. Since chiral LECs are order-dependent, the N3LO posterior may not be a valid prior for N2LO spectral LECs. The manuscript does not discuss this order mismatch. Please either use a consistent N2LO scattering posterior or clarify that the spectral LECs and their priors are order-independent in the combination used in neutron matter. This is essential for the hierarchical Bayesian interpretation of the priors.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Summary and Outlook] 'complementary information' is spelled 'complimentary information'.
  2. [Supplemental Material B] In the caption of Fig. 6, the GW+maximum-mass and GW+maximum-mass+NICER curves are both labeled blue; use distinct colors for clarity.
  3. [Neutron-Star Equations of State] Consider adding a figure showing example EOS from the meta-model and speed-of-sound extension to illustrate the behavior around n_tr = 2n_0.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the inference chain is a forward model with external likelihoods and independently validated emulators.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that astrophysical NS data can constrain the six spectral LECs of an N2LO chiral Hamiltonian. The chain is LECs -> PMM emulator -> pure neutron-matter EOS -> nuclear meta-model -> beta-equilibrated EOS -> speed-of-sound extension -> TOV emulators -> NS observables, with the astrophysical data entering only as the likelihood. The PMM emulator is trained on AFDMC neutron-matter energies for training LEC sets, not on NS data; the paper states it 'allow[s] us to speed up AFDMC calculations by a factor of 10^8 while maintaining errors around 1%, which is comparable to the statistical uncertainty of AFDMC.' The MLP TOV emulators are trained on 270,000 EOS generated from the same parametric family and validated against high-fidelity TOV solutions with 'errors around 0.01% over the validation set.' The priors for the LECs are 'posteriors from a scattering analysis [12]', i.e. independent NN scattering data, not the astrophysical data being predicted. No quantity is fitted to the target observable and then renamed as a prediction. The meta-model bridge from pure neutron matter to beta-equilibrated NS matter is a modeling assumption whose fidelity is not separately validated; that is a potential source of systematic bias and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity because the meta-model is not tuned to the astrophysical data. The heavy reliance on the authors' prior works [51,52,57] is tool-building rather than circular reasoning: these emulators are validated against high-fidelity calculations and do not incorporate the NS observables used in the inference. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the required evidentiary standard is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on several modeling layers: chiral EFT truncation, the PMM and MLP surrogates, the meta-model bridge, the speed-of-sound extension, and the astrophysical likelihoods. No new physical entities are postulated; the free parameters are the six LECs, the symmetric-matter NEPs, the high-density speed-of-sound values, and the internal emulator parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • Six spectral NN LECs d11, d22, d3, d4, d6, d7 = posteriors from the analysis; priors from NN scattering fit (Ref. [12])
    Target parameters of the inference; the central claim is that their posterior shifts under NS data.
  • Symmetric-matter NEPs Ksat, Qsat, Zsat = sampled from Gaussians: 227±18, -172±243, 1287±1499 MeV (Ref. [68])
    Used to build the beta-equilibrated EOS via the meta-model; these degrees of freedom can absorb or obscure LEC effects.
  • Speed-of-sound values c_s^2 at 3n0, 4n0, 5n0, 6n0 = sampled uniformly in [1e-5,1]
    High-density extension beyond n_tr=2n0; decouples LECs from unknown high-density physics but also limits the density range in which LECs are constrained.
  • PMM emulator matrix elements (a–h) = fitted to ~30 AFDMC training LEC sets (Ref. [52])
    Surrogate parameters for the neutron-matter EOS; the quoted ~1% error is not propagated into final LEC posteriors.
  • MLP TOV emulator weights = trained on 200,000 EOS (Ref. [51])
    Surrogate for M_TOV, radius, and tidal deformability; validation error ~0.01%, not propagated.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Chiral EFT at N2LO provides a converged description of neutron matter up to 2n0; neglected higher-order terms do not significantly bias LEC inference.
    The paper truncates the Hamiltonian at N2LO and does not include a truncation-error term in the likelihood; if N3LO/N4LO contributions are large in the density range probed, the inferred LECs are biased.
  • domain assumption In neutron matter at N2LO, three-nucleon forces depend only on pion-nucleon LECs, which are fixed externally; hence the 3N sector is parameter-free here.
    Invoked in Approach: 'the 3N sector in neutron matter is parameter-free at this order [32]'.
  • ad hoc to paper The nuclear meta-model of Margueron et al. can faithfully represent the beta-equilibrated EOS of the chiral Hamiltonian when matched to the PMM neutron-matter EOS.
    This is a modeling bridge specific to this pipeline; no validation against direct AFDMC for beta-equilibrated matter is shown in the paper.
  • domain assumption The speed-of-sound extension with c_s^2 sampled uniformly on [1e-5,1] at 3–6n0 covers all plausible high-density EOS; no phase transitions or non-nucleonic degrees of freedom are needed below 2n0.
    States 'we cannot expect the nucleonic description ... at the highest densities' and therefore introduces the extension; the transition at 2n0 is a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption The PMM emulator reproduces AFDMC neutron-matter energies to ~1% across the LEC prior volume, and this error can be neglected in the posterior.
    Emulator errors are reported in Ref [52] but no validation against AFDMC is shown within the posterior region, and no emulator-error term enters the likelihood.
  • domain assumption The MLP TOV emulators reproduce exact TOV solutions to ~0.01% for EOS in the support of the prior, and this error can be neglected.
    Validation errors are shown for the 70,000-sample validation set, but emulator uncertainty is not propagated.
  • ad hoc to paper Removing EOS with MTOV<2Msun during emulator training is a hard prior that can be combined with the maximum-mass likelihood on PSR J0740+6620 without double-counting the same data.
    The paper does both; this is an assumption about data handling that we flag as a red flag.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian priors on Ksat, Qsat, Zsat from Ref [68] are appropriate representations of symmetric-matter uncertainties.
    These parameters enter the meta-model EOS; if the prior is wrong, the LEC constraints may absorb the misspecification.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13371 in / 21653 out tokens · 215730 ms · 2026-08-04T00:34:20.512597+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Multi-messenger observations of neutron stars (NSs) and their mergers have placed strong constraints on the dense-matter equation of state (EOS). The EOS, in turn, depends on microscopic nuclear interactions that are described by nuclear Hamiltonians. These Hamiltonians are commonly derived within chiral effective field theory (EFT). Ideally, multi-messenger observations of NSs could be used to directly inform our understanding of EFT interactions, but such a direct inference necessitates millions of model evaluations. This is computationally prohibitive because each evaluation requires us to calculate the EOS from a Hamiltonian by solving the quantum many-body problem with methods such as auxiliary-field diffusion Monte Carlo (AFDMC), which provides very accurate and precise solutions but at a significant computational cost. Additionally, we need to solve the stellar structure equations for each EOS which further slows down each model evaluation by a few seconds. In this work, we combine emulators for AFDMC calculations of neutron matter, built using parametric matrix models, and for the stellar structure equations, built using multilayer perceptron neural networks, with the \texttt{PyCBC} data-analysis framework to enable a direct inference of coupling constants in an EFT Hamiltonian using multi-messenger observations of NSs. We find that astrophysical data can provide informative constraints on two-nucleon couplings despite the high densities probed in NS interiors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.05999 by Brendan T. Reed, Cassandra L. Armstrong, Henrik Rose, Ingo Tews, Rahul Somasundaram, Soumi De, Tate Plohr.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Priors (red) and posteriors of the analysis of astrophysical data for all six spectral LECs in neutron matter. The priors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Percent error of the MLP neural network emulators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Mass-radius curves drawn from the GW posterior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This channel is repulsive and leads to the largest of the P-wave phase shifts whereas 3P0 and 3P2 are both attractive and smaller in magnitude. As we found before, the data seems to overall reduce P-wave repulsion. This analysis serves as an important sensitivity study which demonstrates that, among the triplet P waves, the 3P1 channel is more strongly correlated with the properties of NSs. In addition, th… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Examples of solutions to the TOV equations using the high-fidelity solver (lines) and the emulator predictions (points). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Priors (red) and posteriors at different stages in the analysis of astrophysical data for all six spectral LECs in neutron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Light nuclear scattering from neural quantum states

    nucl-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Neural quantum states plus minimum principles compute elastic and inelastic neutron-deuteron scattering observables with conservative uncertainties, without time evolution.

  2. Measuring the radii of merging neutron stars with asteroseismology

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Asteroseismic crust-core interface mode frequency infers neutron star radius to 5-10% if low-density physics is known, measurable via resonant shattering flares or next-gen GW detectors.

  3. Conformal prediction for uncertainties in the neutron star equation of state

    nucl-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Conformalized quantile regression applied post hoc to neutron star posterior samples yields reliable uncertainty bands validated by empirical coverage studies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, The physics of neutron stars, Science304, 536 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0405262

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  2. [2]

    A. L. Wattset al., Colloquium : Measuring the neu- tron star equation of state using x-ray timing, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 021001 (2016), arXiv:1602.01081 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Chatziioannou, H

    K. Chatziioannou, H. T. Cromartie, S. Gandolfi, I. Tews, D. Radice, A. W. Steiner, and A. L. Watts, Neutron stars and the dense matter equation of state: from microscopic theory to macroscopic observations, arXiv:2407.11153 [nucl-th] (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meissner, Mod- ern Theory of Nuclear Forces, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1773 (2009), arXiv:0811.1338 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces, Phys. Rept.503, 1 (2011), arXiv:1105.2919 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    D. R. Entem and R. Machleidt, Accurate charge depen- dent nucleon nucleon potential at fourth order of chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. C68, 041001 (2003), 6 arXiv:nucl-th/0304018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    Epelbaum, W

    E. Epelbaum, W. Glockle, and U.-G. Meissner, The Two- nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order, Nucl. Phys. A747, 362 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0405048

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Gezerlis, I

    A. Gezerlis, I. Tews, E. Epelbaum, S. Gandolfi, K. Hebeler, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Quantum Monte Carlo Calculations with Chiral Effective Field The- ory Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 032501 (2013), arXiv:1303.6243 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    Piarulli, L

    M. Piarulli, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, R. Navarro P´ erez, J. E. Amaro, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Minimally nonlocal nucleon-nucleon potentials with chiral two-pion exchange including ∆ resonances, Phys. Rev. C91, 024003 (2015), arXiv:1412.6446 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    Reinert, H

    P. Reinert, H. Krebs, and E. Epelbaum, Semilocal momentum-space regularized chiral two-nucleon poten- tials up to fifth order, Eur. Phys. J. A54, 86 (2018), arXiv:1711.08821 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    D. R. Entem, R. Machleidt, and Y. Nosyk, High- quality two-nucleon potentials up to fifth order of the chiral expansion, Phys. Rev. C96, 024004 (2017), arXiv:1703.05454 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Somasundaram, J

    R. Somasundaram, J. E. Lynn, L. Huth, A. Schwenk, and I. Tews, Maximally local two-nucleon interactions at N3LO in ∆-less chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C109, 034005 (2024), arXiv:2306.13579 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Navratil, V

    P. Navratil, V. G. Gueorguiev, J. P. Vary, W. E. Ormand, and A. Nogga, Structure of A=10-13 nuclei with two plus three-nucleon interactions from chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 042501 (2007), arXiv:nucl- th/0701038

    arXiv 2007

  14. [14]

    Gazit, S

    D. Gazit, S. Quaglioni, and P. Navratil, Three-Nucleon Low-Energy Constants from the Consistency of Interac- tions and Currents in Chiral Effective Field Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 102502 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 122, 029901 (2019)], arXiv:0812.4444 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  15. [15]

    Hebeler, S

    K. Hebeler, S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Improved nuclear matter calculations from chiral low-momentum interactions, Phys. Rev. C 83, 031301 (2011), arXiv:1012.3381 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  16. [16]

    J. E. Lynn, I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, K. E. Schmidt, and A. Schwenk, Chiral Three-Nucleon Interactions in Light Nuclei, Neutron-αScattering, and Neutron Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 062501 (2016), arXiv:1509.03470 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Piarulliet al., Light-nuclei spectra from chi- ral dynamics, Phys

    M. Piarulliet al., Light-nuclei spectra from chi- ral dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 052503 (2018), arXiv:1707.02883 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Epelbaumet al.(LENPIC), Few- and many-nucleon systems with semilocal coordinate-space regularized chi- ral two- and three-body forces, Phys

    E. Epelbaumet al.(LENPIC), Few- and many-nucleon systems with semilocal coordinate-space regularized chi- ral two- and three-body forces, Phys. Rev. C99, 024313 (2019), arXiv:1807.02848 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    I. Tews, R. Somasundaram, D. Lonardoni, H. G¨ ottling, R. Seutin, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Neutron matter from local chiral effective field theory interactions at large cutoffs, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 033024 (2025), arXiv:2407.08979 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Curry, K

    R. Curry, K. Hebeler, S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, A. Schwenk, R. Somasundaram, and I. Tews, Quantum Monte Carlo Calculations of Light Nuclei with Fully Propagated Theoretical Uncertainties, arXiv:2510.15860 [nucl-th] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Ekstr¨ om, G

    A. Ekstr¨ om, G. R. Jansen, K. A. Wendt, G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, B. D. Carlsson, C. Forss´ en, M. Hjorth- Jensen, P. Navr´ atil, and W. Nazarewicz, Accurate nu- clear radii and binding energies from a chiral interaction, Phys. Rev. C91, 051301 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 109, 059901 (2024)], arXiv:1502.04682 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    Arthuis, K

    P. Arthuis, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Neutron-rich nuclei and neutron skins from chiral low-resolution inter- actions, arXiv:2401.06675 [nucl-th] (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    S. R. Stroberg, J. D. Holt, A. Schwenk, and J. Simonis, AbInitioLimits of Atomic Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 022501 (2021), arXiv:1905.10475 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Miyagi, S

    T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, P. Navr´ atil, K. Hebeler, and J. D. Holt, Converged ab initio calculations of heavy nu- clei, Phys. Rev. C105, 014302 (2022), arXiv:2104.04688 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Huet al., Ab initio predictions link the neutron skin of 208Pb to nuclear forces, Nature Phys.18, 1196 (2022), arXiv:2112.01125 [nucl-th]

    B. Huet al., Ab initio predictions link the neutron skin of 208Pb to nuclear forces, Nature Phys.18, 1196 (2022), arXiv:2112.01125 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Hebeler, V

    K. Hebeler, V. Durant, J. Hoppe, M. Heinz, A. Schwenk, J. Simonis, and A. Tichai, Normal ordering of three- nucleon interactions for ab initio calculations of heavy nu- clei, Phys. Rev. C107, 024310 (2023), arXiv:2211.16262 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Miyagi, X

    T. Miyagi, X. Cao, R. Seutin, S. Bacca, R. F. Gar- cia Ruiz, K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, and A. Schwenk, Im- pact of Two-Body Currents on Magnetic Dipole Mo- ments of Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 232503 (2024), arXiv:2311.14383 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Dooret al., Probing New Bosons and Nuclear Struc- ture with Ytterbium Isotope Shifts, Phys

    M. Dooret al., Probing New Bosons and Nuclear Struc- ture with Ytterbium Isotope Shifts, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 063002 (2025), arXiv:2403.07792 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Bonaiti, G

    F. Bonaiti, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock, Structure of the doubly magic nuclei 208Pb and 266Pb from ab initio computations, arXiv:2508.14217 [nucl-th] (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Z. Li, T. Miyagi, and A. Schwenk, Ab initio calculations of beta-decay half-lives forN= 50 neutron-rich nuclei, arXiv:2509.06812 [nucl-th] (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Kuske, T

    J. Kuske, T. Miyagi, A. Arcones, and A. Schwenk, r- process nucleosynthesis with ab initio nuclear masses around the N=82 shell closure, arXiv:2509.19131 [astro- ph.HE] (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Hebeler and A

    K. Hebeler and A. Schwenk, Chiral three-nucleon forces and neutron matter, Phys. Rev. C82, 014314 (2010), arXiv:0911.0483 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  33. [33]

    I. Tews, T. Kr¨ uger, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Neu- tron matter at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order in chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 032504 (2013), arXiv:1206.0025 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  34. [34]

    Drischler, K

    C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Chiral inter- actions up to next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order and nuclear saturation, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 042501 (2019), arXiv:1710.08220 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. A. Melendez, R. J. Furnstahl, and D. R. Phillips, Quantifying uncertainties and correlations in the nuclear-matter equation of state, Phys. Rev. C102, 054315 (2020), arXiv:2004.07805 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Lovato, I

    A. Lovato, I. Bombaci, D. Logoteta, M. Piarulli, and R. B. Wiringa, Benchmark calculations of infinite neu- tron matter with realistic two- and three-nucleon poten- tials, Phys. Rev. C105, 055808 (2022), arXiv:2202.10293 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Keller, K

    J. Keller, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Nuclear Equation of State for Arbitrary Proton Fraction and Temperature Based on Chiral Effective Field Theory and a Gaussian Process Emulator, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 072701 (2023), 7 arXiv:2204.14016 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Marino, W

    F. Marino, W. Jiang, and S. J. Novario, Diagrammatic ab initio methods for infinite nuclear matter with mod- ern chiral interactions, Phys. Rev. C110, 054322 (2024), arXiv:2407.17098 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Maselli, A

    A. Maselli, A. Sabatucci, and O. Benhar, Constrain- ing three-nucleon forces with multimessenger data, Phys. Rev. C103, 065804 (2021), arXiv:2010.03581 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Sabatucci, O

    A. Sabatucci, O. Benhar, A. Maselli, and C. Pa- cilio, Sensitivity of neutron star observations to three- nucleon forces, Phys. Rev. D106, 083010 (2022), arXiv:2206.11286 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    H. Rose, N. Kunert, T. Dietrich, P. T. H. Pang, R. Smith, C. Van Den Broeck, S. Gandolfi, and I. Tews, Reveal- ing the strength of three-nucleon interactions with the proposed Einstein Telescope, Phys. Rev. C108, 025811 (2023), arXiv:2303.11201 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Somasundaram, I

    R. Somasundaram, I. Svensson, S. De, A. E. Deneris, Y. Dietz, P. Landry, A. Schwenk, and I. Tews, Inferring three-nucleon couplings from multi-messenger neutron- star observations, Nature Commun.16, 9819 (2025), arXiv:2410.00247 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Antoniadiset al., A Massive Pulsar in a Com- pact Relativistic Binary, Science340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

    J. Antoniadiset al., A Massive Pulsar in a Com- pact Relativistic Binary, Science340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  44. [44]

    Arzoumanianet al.(NANOGrav), The NANOGrav 11-year Data Set: High-precision timing of 45 Mil- lisecond Pulsars, Astrophys

    Z. Arzoumanianet al.(NANOGrav), The NANOGrav 11-year Data Set: High-precision timing of 45 Mil- lisecond Pulsars, Astrophys. J. Suppl.235, 37 (2018), arXiv:1801.01837 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [45]

    Fonsecaet al., Refined Mass and Geometric Measure- ments of the High-mass PSR J0740+6620, Astrophys

    E. Fonsecaet al., Refined Mass and Geometric Measure- ments of the High-mass PSR J0740+6620, Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L12 (2021), arXiv:2104.00880 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neu- tron Star Inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    Vinciguerraet al., An Updated Mass–Radius Analysis of the 2017–2018 NICER Data Set of PSR J0030+0451, Astrophys

    S. Vinciguerraet al., An Updated Mass–Radius Analysis of the 2017–2018 NICER Data Set of PSR J0030+0451, Astrophys. J.961, 62 (2024), arXiv:2308.09469 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    Salmiet al., The Radius of the High-mass Pulsar PSR J0740+6620 with 3.6 yr of NICER Data, Astrophys

    T. Salmiet al., The Radius of the High-mass Pulsar PSR J0740+6620 with 3.6 yr of NICER Data, Astrophys. J. 974, 294 (2024), arXiv:2406.14466 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Choudhuryet al., A NICER View of the Nearest and Brightest Millisecond Pulsar: PSR J0437–4715, Astro- phys

    D. Choudhuryet al., A NICER View of the Nearest and Brightest Millisecond Pulsar: PSR J0437–4715, Astro- phys. J. Lett.971, L20 (2024), arXiv:2407.06789 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

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

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

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    B. T. Reed, R. Somasundaram, S. De, C. L. Armstrong, P. Giuliani, C. Capano, D. A. Brown, and I. Tews, To- ward Accelerated Nuclear-physics Parameter Estimation from Binary Neutron Star Mergers: Emulators for the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff Equations, Astrophys. J. 974, 285 (2024), arXiv:2405.20558 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    C. L. Armstrong, P. Giuliani, K. Godbey, R. So- masundaram, and I. Tews, Emulators for Scarce and Noisy Data: Application to Auxiliary-Field Diffusion Monte Carlo for Neutron Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 142501 (2025), arXiv:2502.03680 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schi- avilla, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, Quantum Monte Carlo methods for nuclear physics, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1067 (2015), arXiv:1412.3081 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [54]

    J. E. Lynn, I. Tews, S. Gandolfi, and A. Lovato, Quan- tum Monte Carlo Methods in Nuclear Physics: Recent Advances, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 279 (2019), arXiv:1901.04868 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Ruiz de Elvira, B. Kubis, and U.-G. Meißner, Roy–Steiner-equation analysis of pion–nucleon scattering, Phys. Rept.625, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.06039 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  56. [56]

    Siemens, J

    D. Siemens, J. Ruiz de Elvira, E. Epelbaum, M. Hoferichter, H. Krebs, B. Kubis, and U. G. Meißner, Reconciling threshold and subthreshold expansions for pion–nucleon scattering, Phys. Lett. B770, 27 (2017), arXiv:1610.08978 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

    B. T. Reed, C. L. Armstrong, R. Somasundaram, C. Ca- pano, S. De, and I. Tews, Direct Inference of Nuclear Equation-of-State Parameters from Gravitational-Wave Observations, arXiv:2506.15984 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    P. Cook, D. Jammooa, M. Hjorth-Jensen, D. D. Lee, and D. Lee, Parametric Matrix Models, arXiv:2401.11694 [cs.LG] (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Frame, R

    D. Frame, R. He, I. Ipsen, D. Lee, D. Lee, and E. Rrapaj, Eigenvector continuation with subspace learning, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 032501 (2018)

    2018

  60. [60]

    K¨ onig, A

    S. K¨ onig, A. Ekstr¨ om, K. Hebeler, D. Lee, and A. Schwenk, Eigenvector continuation as an efficient and accurate emulator for uncertainty quantification, Physics Letters B810, 135814 (2020), arXiv:1909.08446 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    Bonilla, P

    E. Bonilla, P. Giuliani, K. Godbey, and D. Lee, Training and projecting: A reduced basis method emulator for many-body physics, Phys. Rev. C106, 054322 (2022), arXiv:2203.05284 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  62. [62]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. A. Melendez, R. J. Furnstahl, A. J. Gar- cia, and X. Zhang, BUQEYE guide to projection-based emulators in nuclear physics, Front. in Phys.10, 1092931 (2022), arXiv:2212.04912 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    J. A. Melendez, C. Drischler, R. J. Furnstahl, A. J. Garcia, and X. Zhang, Model reduction methods for nuclear emulators, J. Phys. G49, 102001 (2022), arXiv:2203.05528 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    Duguet, A

    T. Duguet, A. Ekstr¨ om, R. J. Furnstahl, S. K¨ onig, and D. Lee, Colloquium: Eigenvector continuation and projection-based emulators, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 031002 (2024), arXiv:2310.19419 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Giuliani, K

    P. Giuliani, K. Godbey, E. Bonilla, F. Viens, and J. Piekarewicz, Bayes goes fast: Uncertainty quantifica- tion for a covariant energy density functional emulated by the reduced basis method, Frontiers in Physics10, 1054524 (2023), arXiv:2209.13039 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Equation of state for dense nucleonic matter from meta- modeling. I. Foundational aspects, Phys. Rev. C97, 025805 (2018), arXiv:1708.06894 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  67. [67]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Equation of state for dense nucleonic matter from meta- modeling. II. Predictions for neutron star properties, Phys. Rev. C97, 025806 (2018), arXiv:1708.06895 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  68. [68]

    Somasundaram, C

    R. Somasundaram, C. Drischler, I. Tews, and J. Mar- gueron, Constraints on the nuclear symmetry energy from asymmetric-matter calculations with chiralN N and 3Ninteractions, Phys. Rev. C103, 045803 (2021), arXiv:2009.04737 [nucl-th]. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    Douchin and P

    F. Douchin and P. Haensel, A unified equation of state of dense matter and neutron star structure, Astron. As- trophys.380, 151 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0111092

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  70. [70]

    Koehnet al., From existing and new nuclear and as- trophysical constraints to stringent limits on the equation of state of neutron-rich dense matter, Phys

    H. Koehnet al., From existing and new nuclear and as- trophysical constraints to stringent limits on the equation of state of neutron-rich dense matter, Phys. Rev. X15, 021014 (2025), arXiv:2402.04172 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    I. Tews, J. Margueron, and S. Reddy, Critical examina- tion of constraints on the equation of state of dense mat- ter obtained from GW170817, Phys. Rev. C98, 045804 (2018), arXiv:1804.02783 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  72. [72]

    S. K. Greif, G. Raaijmakers, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, and A. L. Watts, Equation of state sensitivities when inferring neutron star and dense matter properties, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485, 5363 (2019), arXiv:1812.08188 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  73. [73]

    Somasundaram, I

    R. Somasundaram, I. Tews, and J. Margueron, In- vestigating signatures of phase transitions in neutron- star cores, Phys. Rev. C107, 025801 (2023), arXiv:2112.08157 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW170817: Measurements of neutron star radii and equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  75. [75]

    Pratten, L

    G. Pratten, L. M. Thomas, and A. Ramos Buades, Lal- suite waveform data, 10.5281/zenodo.14999310 (2025)

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14999310 2025

  76. [76]

    Soares-Santoset al.(DES, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM), The Electromagnetic Counterpart of the Bi- nary Neutron Star Merger LIGO/Virgo GW170817

    M. Soares-Santoset al.(DES, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM), The Electromagnetic Counterpart of the Bi- nary Neutron Star Merger LIGO/Virgo GW170817. I. Discovery of the Optical Counterpart Using the Dark Energy Camera, Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L16 (2017), arXiv:1710.05459 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  77. [77]

    Cantielloet al., A Precise Distance to the Host Galaxy of the Binary Neutron Star Merger GW170817 Using Sur- face Brightness Fluctuations, Astrophys

    M. Cantielloet al., A Precise Distance to the Host Galaxy of the Binary Neutron Star Merger GW170817 Using Sur- face Brightness Fluctuations, Astrophys. J. Lett.854, L31 (2018), arXiv:1801.06080 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  78. [78]

    Vallisneri, J

    M. Vallisneri, J. Kanner, R. Williams, A. Weinstein, and B. Stephens, The LIGO Open Science Center, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.610, 012021 (2015), arXiv:1410.4839 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  79. [79]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Open data from the first and second observing runs of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, SoftwareX13, 100658 (2021), arXiv:1912.11716 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Open data from the first and second observing runs of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, SoftwareX13, 100658 (2021), arXiv:1912.11716 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  80. [80]

    C. M. Biwer, C. D. Capano, S. De, M. Cabero, D. A. Brown, A. H. Nitz, and V. Raymond, PyCBC Inference: A Python-based parameter estimation toolkit for com- pact binary coalescence signals, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 131, 024503 (2019), arXiv:1807.10312 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.