Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 78 references

Setting nonperturbative uncertainties on finite-temperature properties of neutron matter

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper provides a first uncertainty band for finite-temperature pure neutron matter that simultaneously covers chiral-interaction spread, many-body method truncation, and thermodynamic consistency.

desk verdict A useful first finite-T neutron matter uncertainty band from SCGF, but the band is a hand-picked interaction spread, not a rigorous combination of all claimed uncertainties. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04736 v2 pith:6WK2LQ4H submitted 2019-08-13 nucl-th astro-ph.HEgr-qcnucl-ex

Arianna Carbone This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HEgr-qcnucl-ex
keywords pureneutronmatterfinitetemperaturechiraleffectivefieldtheoryself-consistentGreen'sfunctionsnuclearequationofstatemassuncertaintyquantificationstarmergers
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

The paper aims to give finite-temperature pure neutron matter a first uncertainty band that includes all three major error sources: the nuclear interaction, the many-body method truncation, and the thermodynamic consistency of the calculation. To do this, it computes pressure, effective mass, and single-particle potentials at a representative temperature T = 30 MeV using two chiral Hamiltonians — N2LOsat and 2.0/2.0 (EM) — selected from a broader set by their zero-temperature saturation, symmetry energy, and pressure behavior. The resulting band is meant to be the first first-principles constraint on the thermal part of the nuclear equation of state, relevant for neutron-star merger and supernova simulations. If the band holds, astrophysical simulations gain a quantified, theory-based error bar instead of an ideal-fluid guess for thermal effects.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the self-consistent Green's function (SCGF) ladder approximation, which solves the Dyson equation for a fully dressed nucleon propagator and resums particle-particle and hole-hole scattering diagrams to all orders in the ladder series. From the resulting spectral function, the energy per nucleon is obtained via the Galitskii-Migdal-Koltun sum rule. The uncertainty band itself is generated by a bracketing construction: the spread between the two selected chiral Hamiltonians defines the interaction error, the spread among SCHF, SC2O, and full SCGF self-energy truncations defines the many-body error, and the comparison of the microscopic pressure with the thermodynamic pressure from the free-energy derivative defines the consistency error.

What would settle it

Compute the same finite-T observables at T = 30 MeV using a third high-quality chiral Hamiltonian that passes the same zero-temperature selection criteria, and check whether its pressure and effective mass fall within the two-Hamiltonian band at densities up to $0.32\,\mathrm{fm}^{-3}$; any Hamiltonian that falls outside would show the band is too narrow. An order-by-order chiral EFT calculation with cutoff variation at finite-T would settle the same question more formally.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the self-consistent Green's function (SCGF) ladder method, the paper finds that at T = 30 MeV the pressure of pure neutron matter is controlled mainly by the interaction uncertainty: at twice saturation density, the chiral Hamiltonian band is roughly four times larger than the band coming from comparing first-, second-, and all-order self-consistent approximations. The neutron effective mass shows the opposite hierarchy: the many-body uncertainty is more than twice the interaction band at the same density, and the first-order (Hartree-Fock) result misses the energy-dependent contribution $m_\omega$ entirely, so beyond-first-order self-energies are required. The paper also finds that second-order self-consistent calculations essentially reproduce the full SCGF results for both pressure and effective mass, and that the residual thermodynamic inconsistency is traced to the approximation used for the three-body-force expectation value. Together these results constitute what the paper claims is the first nonperturbative error band for finite-temperature neutron matter that simultaneously accounts for interaction, method, and thermodynamic consistency.

Load-bearing premise

The band is only as reliable as the assumption that the two chosen chiral Hamiltonians, N2LOsat and 2.0/2.0 (EM), bracket the true nuclear-interaction uncertainty at all densities up to $0.32\,\mathrm{fm}^{-3}$, where chiral effective field theory is taken to be valid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Finite-temperature equation-of-state tables used in neutron-star merger and core-collapse supernova simulations can carry a first-principles uncertainty band rather than an ideal-fluid thermal correction.
  • The neutron effective mass at finite temperature, which sets the thermal index, becomes an independent cross-check on the thermal part of the equation of state and on the dominant postmerger gravitational-wave frequency.
  • Up to twice saturation density, tightening the pressure band means tightening the chiral interaction uncertainty, which is about four times larger than the many-body method uncertainty.
  • First-order self-consistent calculations of the effective mass are not reliable because they miss the energy dependence of the self-energy; second-order calculations already reproduce the full SCGF results.
  • The same Hamiltonian-selection and consistency check can be carried over to other finite-temperature observables, giving a general template for propagating chiral-interaction uncertainty.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A straightforward test the paper does not perform: run the same T = 30 MeV calculation with a third high-quality chiral Hamiltonian that passes the zero-temperature selection, and see whether its pressure and effective mass stay inside the band.
  • The bracketing strategy could be extended to symmetric nuclear matter, where the liquid-gas phase transition provides an extra observable against which the band can be checked.
  • Because the effective mass carries most of the finite-temperature signal, a parametrized equation of state that reproduces the SCGF effective mass might inherit the uncertainty band without recomputing the full many-body problem at every density and temperature.
  • Combined with future radius measurements of neutron stars, the band could turn the pressure uncertainty into a quantitative statement about how temperature stiffens or softens the neutron star equation of state, a connection the paper leaves open.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper computes zero-temperature symmetric nuclear matter, pure neutron matter, and symmetry energy with the self-consistent Green's function (SCGF) method for seven chiral Hamiltonians, then selects five on saturation constraints and finally two (N2LOsat and 2.0/2.0 EM) to define an uncertainty band. It then reports finite-temperature (T = 30 MeV) pure neutron matter pressure, effective mass, and self-energies at three many-body truncations (SCHF, SC2O, SCGF) and compares microscopic and thermodynamic pressures. The central claim is that the resulting band comprehends uncertainties from the nuclear interaction, the many-body method convergence, and the thermodynamical consistency of the approach.

Significance. The numerical machinery is appropriate: SCGF is a well-established nonperturbative method, the calculations are performed directly at finite temperature, and the zero-temperature results are compared with empirical constraints from saturation, symmetry energy, unitary-gas limits, and GW170817. The paper is also honest about the lack of order-by-order chiral EFT uncertainty quantification and explicitly points toward Bayesian analyses as the next step. If the claims are carefully restricted to "the spread between two selected chiral Hamiltonians at the SCGF level," the results represent a useful first step for finite-temperature neutron matter and for astrophysical equation-of-state work. The effective-mass analysis, including the separate momentum and energy contributions, is a valuable addition. However, the paper's central advertised product—a band comprehending all three uncertainty sources—is not what Fig. 4 actually delivers, so the significance as stated is overstated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. III B, Fig. 4(a)] The abstract and Sec. III B state that the error band "comprehends uncertainties on the nuclear interaction, the many-body method convergence, and the thermodynamical consistency of the approach," but the band displayed in Fig. 4(a) is formed only by the SCGF pressures for N2LOsat and 2.0/2.0 (EM). The SCHF, SC2O, and SCGF(therm) curves are plotted separately and are never combined into the quoted band. Please either define a combination rule that folds the method-convergence and thermodynamic-consistency spreads into a total band, or revise the abstract and conclusions to describe the band as an interaction-spread estimate with the other uncertainties listed as separate, non-banded comparisons.
  2. [Sec. III A, Figs. 2-3] The choice of N2LOsat as the upper band edge is not justified by the constraints presented: Fig. 2 shows N2LOsat violates the unitary-gas limit between nsat/2 and 1.25 nsat and lies outside the Oertel et al. symmetry-energy interval at saturation, and Fig. 3 shows it is outside the GW170817 pressure band near nsat. The rationale given (finite-nucleus performance, conservative high-density behavior) may be legitimate, but it means the band is the distance to an interaction that fails the very zero-T infinite-matter tests used to select the realistic set. Since the paper itself concedes that proper order-by-order chiral EFT uncertainty quantification is not available, the band should be described as a bracketing by a specific, partly outlier interaction rather than as a chiral-EFT truncation uncertainty. Please state this caveat prominently or expand the band to include all five selected Hamiltonians.
  3. [Sec. III B and Conclusion] The quantitative claims in the Conclusion—that at 2nsat the many-body uncertainty is about 1.5 MeV and the interaction uncertainty about 6 MeV for the pressure, and that for the effective mass the many-body error is more than twice the chiral-interaction uncertainty—are not supported by any explicit error-propagation definition. The text gives no rule for how the SCHF/SC2O/SCGF spread is converted into a band or how the thermodynamic-consistency difference enters. Please provide the numerical definitions (e.g., max-min over truncations or a standard deviation) and the exact values, or remove these quantitative comparisons from the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III B] The text "a band of ~1.5 MeV" and "~6 MeV" should specify the units as MeV fm^-3 for pressure; as written, the quantities are ambiguous.
  2. [Sec. III A, last paragraph] The phrase "exiles the scope of the present paper" appears to be a typo; it should read "lies outside the scope" or similar.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The figure caption should explicitly indicate which curves define the quoted uncertainty band; currently the caption lists multiple approximations but does not state whether the band is the region between the N2LOsat and 2.0/2.0 SCGF curves or a combination including the SCHF and SC2O results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the finite-T results are computed from chiral Hamiltonians via SCGF and are not fitted to the claimed outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained: finite-T neutron-matter properties are obtained by solving the SCGF equations with two chiral Hamiltonians (N2LOsat and 2.0/2.0 (EM)), and no parameter is fitted to the finite-T pressure, effective mass, or self-energy that are presented as outputs. The two band-edge Hamiltonians are selected using external zero-T information (empirical saturation box, unitary-gas limit, symmetry-energy constraints, and the GW170817 pressure band), not using the finite-T results, so the finite-T spread is a genuine propagation of input Hamiltonians rather than a renaming of a fit. The paper separately shows SCHF, SC2O, and SCGF curves and compares SCGF with SCGF(therm), transparently treating many-body truncation and thermodynamic consistency as distinct comparisons instead of silently folding them into the interaction band. Self-citations to Refs. [28], [37], [44], [49], and [66] document the method and earlier numerical implementations; these are standard, independently published results and are not used as a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternative approaches. The admitted absence of formal order-by-order chiral-EFT uncertainty quantification is a limitation, not a circular step, because the paper does not claim that the selected-interaction spread is derived from that formal procedure. No equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction; therefore no circularity is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central calculation is a first-principles SCGF computation from given chiral Hamiltonians, so the main uncertainty-related assumption is that the two selected interactions bracket the true interaction uncertainty and that the chiral expansion remains valid up to the highest density shown. The three-body force approximation is explicitly identified as the source of thermodynamic inconsistency and is treated as a band contribution rather than corrected.

free parameters (1)
  • Band edge interaction selection = N2LOsat (upper), 2.0/2.0 (EM) (lower)
    The uncertainty band is defined by the difference between these two chiral Hamiltonians, chosen by the author based on zero-T saturation, symmetry energy, unitary-gas limit, and pressure comparisons (Sec. III A, Figs. 1-3). The band width is therefore a consequence of this hand-picked selection rather than a statistical sampling of interaction uncertainties.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Chiral EFT with the selected Hamiltonians provides a valid description of nuclear forces at densities up to the maximum considered (0.32 fm^-3).
    The paper computes PNM up to n=0.32 fm^-3 and notes that at 2 nsat (0.32 fm^-3) one approaches the resolution scale of the interactions, implying validity in this range is assumed (Sec. III B).
  • domain assumption The approximation used for the three-body operator expectation value ⟨Ŵ⟩ in Eq. (3) (from Ref. [28]) yields usable accuracy, with the resulting thermodynamic inconsistency treated as an uncertainty rather than a corrected bias.
    Thermodynamic consistency holds only with two-body forces; the reported SCGF vs SCGF(therm) difference is attributed to the three-body approximation and folded into the band (Sec. III B, panel (a)).
  • domain assumption The empirical saturation box of Brown and Schwenk (Ref. [55]) is a reliable constraint on the nuclear matter EoS and is used to select the chiral interactions.
    Used in Sec. III A to screen seven chiral interactions down to five, then to two, for the finite-T band.
  • standard math The unitary-gas limit (Ref. [56]) provides a valid lower bound for the symmetry energy at these densities.
    Used in Sec. III A to exclude N2LOsat from matching the unitary-gas limit region and to delimit the symmetry energy band.
  • domain assumption The SCGF ladder resummation (all-orders in the ladder series) yields a well-converged many-body solution at finite T, so that the SCHF and SC2O comparisons bracket the method error.
    The method relies on the ladder approximation to the self-energy; the paper uses the spread between truncations to estimate method uncertainty without a rigorous convergence proof (Sec. II and III B).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Setting nonperturbative uncertainties on finite-temperature properties of neutron matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6WK2LQ4H

@misc{pith2026190804736,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Setting nonperturbative uncertainties on finite-temperature properties of neutron matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6WK2LQ4H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04736}
}
read the original abstract

We present an error band on neutron matter properties at finite temperature (finite-T) which comprehends uncertainties on the nuclear interaction, the many-body method convergence, and the thermodynamical consistency of the approach. This study provides nonperturbative predictions for finite-T neutron matter employing chiral interactions which are selected on the basis of their performance in both finite nuclei and infinite matter at zero temperature. Since proper theoretical uncertainties at finite-T are still generally lacking, the band provided here represents a first step towards setting first-principles constraints on thermal aspects of the nuclear matter equation of state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04736 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Zero-T SNM energy per nucleon vs. number density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Zero-T PNM pressure vs. number density obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. PNM properties at T=30 MeV obtained using different approximations of the many-body method: SCHF, SC2O and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. M. Lattimer, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62, 485 (2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015007 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    G. F. Burgio and A. F. Fantina, Astrophys. Space Sci. Libr. 457, 255 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Hagen, A

    G. Hagen, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. R. Jansen, W. Nazarewicz, T. Papenbrock, K. A. Wendt, S. Bacca, N. Barnea, B. Carlsson, C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, M. Hjorth-Jensen, M. Miorelli, G. Orlandini, A. Schwenk, and J. Simonis, Nat. Phys. 12, 186 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Hebeler, J

    K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, Astrophys. J. 773, 11 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    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, Phys. Rev. C 91, 051301 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Lapoux, V

    V. Lapoux, V. Som` a, C. Barbieri, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, and S. R. Stroberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 052501 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Drischler, K

    C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 042501 (2019)

    2019

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Idini, C

    A. Idini, C. Barbieri, and P. Navr´ atil, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 092501 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    J. D. Holt, S. R. Stroberg, A. Schwenk, and J. Simonis, (2019), arXiv:1905.10475 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Leonhardt, M

    M. Leonhardt, M. Pospiech, B. Schallmo, J. Braun, C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, (2019), arXiv:1907.05814 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    E. R. Most, L. R. Weih, L. Rezzolla, and J. Schaffner- Bielich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 261103 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 172703 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    L. R. Weih, E. R. Most, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. 881, 73 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Friedman and V

    B. Friedman and V. Pandharipande, Nucl. Phys. A 361, 502 (1981)

    1981

  9. [17]

    ter Haar and R

    B. ter Haar and R. Malfliet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1237 (1986)

    1986

  10. [18]

    Lejeune, P

    A. Lejeune, P. Grange, M. Martzolff, and J. Cugnon, Nucl. Phys. A 453, 189 (1986)

    1986

  11. [19]

    Huber, F

    H. Huber, F. Weber, and M. K. Weigel, Phys. Rev. C 57, 3484 (1998)

    1998

  12. [20]

    Baldo and L

    M. Baldo and L. S. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. C59, 682 (1999)

    1999

  13. [21]

    Frick and H

    T. Frick and H. M¨ uther, Phys. Rev. C68, 034310 (2003)

    2003

  14. [22]

    Tolos, B

    L. Tolos, B. Friman, and A. Schwenk, Nucl. Phys. A 806, 105 (2008)

    2008

  15. [23]

    Som` a and P

    V. Som` a and P. Bo˙ zek, Phys. Rev. C80, 025803 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    A. Rios, A. Polls, and I. Vida˜ na, Phys. Rev. C79, 025802 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    Fiorilla, N

    S. Fiorilla, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 880, 65 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Togashi and M

    H. Togashi and M. Takano, Nucl. Phys. A 902, 53 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Wellenhofer, J

    C. Wellenhofer, J. W. Holt, and N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. C 92, 015801 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Carbone, A

    A. Carbone, A. Polls, and A. Rios, Phys. Rev. C 98, 025804 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Lu, Z.-H

    J.-J. Lu, Z.-H. Li, G. F. Burgio, and H.-J. Schulze, (2019), arXiv:1907.03120 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    G. F. Burgio, H.-J. Schulze, and A. Li, Phys. Rev. C 83, 025804 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    H. Chen, M. Baldo, G. F. Burgio, and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. D 86, 045006 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Camelio, A

    G. Camelio, A. Lovato, L. Gualtieri, O. Benhar, J. A. Pons, and V. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043015 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Togashi, K

    H. Togashi, K. Nakazato, Y. Takehara, S. Yamamuro, H. Suzuki, and M. Takano, Nucl. Phys. A 961, 78 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Rezzolla and O

    L. Rezzolla and O. Zanotti, Relativistic Hydrodynamics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Bauswein, H.-T

    A. Bauswein, H.-T. Janka, and R. Oechslin, Phys. Rev. D 82, 084043 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    Constantinou, B

    C. Constantinou, B. Muccioli, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. C 92, 025801 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Carbone and A

    A. Carbone and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 100, 025805 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Lim and J

    Y. Lim and J. W. Holt, (2019), arXiv:1909.09089 [nucl- th]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    X. Du, A. W. Steiner, and J. W. Holt, Phys. Rev. C 99, 025803 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    C. A. Raithel, F. ¨Ozel, and D. Psaltis, Astrophys. J 875, 12 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    P. M. Chesler, N. Jokela, A. Loeb, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. D 100, 066027 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Yasin, S

    H. Yasin, S. Sch¨ afer, A. Arcones, and A. Schwenk, (2018), arXiv:1812.02002

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    A. S. Schneider, L. F. Roberts, C. D. Ott, and E. O’connor, (2019), arXiv:1906.02009 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Self-consistent green’s function approaches,

    C. Barbieri and A. Carbone, “Self-consistent green’s function approaches,” in An Advanced Course in Com- putational Nuclear Physics: Bridging the Scales from Quarks to Neutron Stars. LNP 936 , edited by M. Hjorth- Jensen, M. P. Lombardo, and U. van Kolck (Springer Internationa...

    2017

  37. [45]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meisner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1773 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. Entem, Phys. Rep. 503, 1 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    Hammer, A

    H.-W. Hammer, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 197 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    W. H. Dickhoff and C. Barbieri, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 52, 377 (2004)

    2004

  41. [49]

    Carbone, A

    A. Carbone, A. Cipollone, C. Barbieri, A. Rios, and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. C 88, 054326 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    Baym and L

    G. Baym and L. P. Kadanoff, Phys. Rev.124, 287 (1961)

    1961

  43. [51]

    Baym, Phys

    G. Baym, Phys. Rev. 127, 1391 (1962). 7

    1962

  44. [52]

    Hebeler, S

    K. Hebeler, S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 83, 031301(R) (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    Simonis, S

    J. Simonis, S. R. Stroberg, K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 96, 014303 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    P. Klos, A. Carbone, K. Hebeler, J. Men´ endez, and A. Schwenk, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 168 (2017), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 76 (2018)]

    2017

  47. [55]

    B. A. Brown and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 89, 011307 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    I. Tews, J. M. Lattimer, A. Ohnishi, and E. E. Kolomeit- sev, Astrophys. J 848, 105 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    Zhang and B.-A

    N.-B. Zhang and B.-A. Li, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 39 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (The LIGO Scientific Collabora- tion and the Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Russotto, S

    P. Russotto, S. Gannon, S. Kupny, P. Lasko, L. Acosta, M. Adamczyk, A. Al-Ajlan, M. Al-Garawi, S. Al- Homaidhi, F. Amorini, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 94, 034608 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    Ekstr¨ om, G

    A. Ekstr¨ om, G. Hagen, T. D. Morris, T. Papenbrock, and P. D. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. C 97, 024332 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 122301 (2015)

    2015

  54. [62]

    B. D. Carlsson, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, D. F. Str¨ omberg, G. R. Jansen, O. Lilja, M. Lindby, B. A. Mattsson, and K. A. Wendt, Phys. Rev. X 6, 011019 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Epelbaum, J

    E. Epelbaum, J. Golak, K. Hebeler, T. H¨ uther, H. Ka- mada, H. Krebs, P. Maris, U.-G. Meißner, A. Nogga, R. Roth, R. Skibi´ nski, K. Topolnicki, J. P. Vary, K. Vo- big, and H. Wita la (LENPIC Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 99, 024313 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Hammer, S

    H.-W. Hammer, S. K¨ onig, and U. van Kolck, (2019), arXiv:1906.12122 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    C. C. Chang et al. , Nature 558, 91 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    Carbone, A

    A. Carbone, A. Rios, and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. C 90, 054322 (2014)

    2014

  59. [67]

    Baiotti and L

    L. Baiotti and L. Rezzolla, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 096901 (2017)

    2017

  60. [68]

    Li, B.-J

    B.-A. Li, B.-J. Cai, L.-W. Chen, and J. Xu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 99, 29 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    Hebeler and A

    K. Hebeler and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 82, 014314 (2010)

    2010

  62. [70]

    H. F. Arellano, F. Isaule, and A. Rios, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 299 (2016)

    2016

  63. [71]

    Buraczynski, N

    M. Buraczynski, N. Ismail, and A. Gezerlis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 152701 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    J. Xu, A. Carbone, Z. Zhang, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 100, 024618 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    R. J. Furnstahl, D. R. Phillips, and S. Wesolowski, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 42, 034028 (2015)

    2015

  66. [74]

    Lim and J

    Y. Lim and J. W. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 062701 (2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    Bauswein and N

    A. Bauswein and N. Stergioulas, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 46, 113002 (2019)

    2019

  68. [76]

    K¨ oppel, L

    S. K¨ oppel, L. Bovard, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. 872, L16 (2019)

    2019

  69. [77]

    Perego, S

    A. Perego, S. Bernuzzi, and D. Radice, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 124 (2019)

    2019

  70. [78]

    Kiuchi, K

    K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Astrophys. J. 876, L31 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.