Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 53 references

A Bayesian analysis finds that the DD-ME2 nuclear functional needs a ~9% high-density softening of its vector repulsion to fit flow, pulsar, NICER, and GW170817 data, while leaving finite-nucleus predictions untouched.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 20:15 UTC pith:SGF3GT67

load-bearing objection The protected-deformation recipe and DD-PC1 negative control are genuinely useful, but the headline DD-ME2 Bayes factor is essentially the HIC flow band treated as 25 independent Gaussians, and the paper's own Table 4 shows that removing or widening that term collapses the evidence. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16683 v1 pith:SGF3GT67 submitted 2026-07-18 nucl-th

Finite-nucleus-protected high-density extension of covariant density functionals constrained by multimessenger data

Wen-Jie Xie , Jun-Hua Guo This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords covariant density functionalequation of stateheavy-ion flowBayesian model selectionneutron starDD-ME2high-density vector channelmultimessenger constraints
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that the tension between the DD-ME2 nuclear functional and a combined set of high-density constraints can be traced to a single channel: the isoscalar-vector repulsion. It shows that a three-parameter deformation of that channel, switched on only above about twice saturation density, is strongly preferred by Bayesian evidence (ln K = 26.67) once a causality filter is imposed, while leaving finite-nucleus predictions unchanged. The same deformation is not selected for DD-PC1 (ln K = -0.44), which serves as a reference showing the data do not demand universal extra flexibility. A sympathetic reader would care because this provides a controlled way to extend finite-nucleus-calibrated functionals to neutron-star densities and identifies exactly where the original DD-ME2 fails.

Core claim

The paper proposes that a well-calibrated covariant density functional can be extended to neutron-star densities by deforming only the isoscalar-vector coupling above a protection cutoff, and uses Bayesian evidence to test whether the data require such a deformation. Applied to DD-ME2, the combined heavy-ion flow, massive-pulsar, NICER, and GW170817 likelihood strongly prefers the extended model, with ln K = 26.67, because the original vector sector is too repulsive: the posterior selects roughly a 9% reduction of the vector coupling at several times saturation density. The same extension applied to DD-PC1 is not favored (ln K = -0.44), so the method does not simply reward extra parameters.

What carries the argument

The central object is the protected high-density counterterm in the isoscalar-vector channel: the coupling ΓV(n) is multiplied by 1 + fV S(x; xt, wt), where S is a smooth switch (a tanh step multiplied by a protection factor H(x)) that is exactly zero below a cutoff density x_cut = 1.35 n0 and reaches unity above x_on = 2.00 n0. The three parameters (fV strength, xt onset, wt width) are varied in a Bayesian analysis; the model comparison uses the evidence Z, so the extension carries an Occam penalty from its prior volume. The protection factor guarantees that finite-nucleus observables are untouched, and the causal/stability filter (squared sound speed between -0.05 and 1 over 1.5-6.5 n0) is

Load-bearing premise

The entire verdict rests on treating the digitized heavy-ion flow pressure band as an unbiased, one-sided Gaussian constraint with no point-to-point covariance or transport-model systematic uncertainty; if that band is broader or biased, the strong preference for the DD-ME2 extension collapses.

What would settle it

Recompute the Bayes factor with a heavy-ion flow likelihood that includes point-to-point covariances or an explicit transport-model systematic width: if ln K(DD-ME2) falls below ~2 while all other constraints stay fixed, the claim that DD-ME2's vector sector is too repulsive would be falsified. Equivalently, a newer high-precision flow pressure measurement that centers near the original DD-ME2 band would remove the tension.

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

If this is right

  • If correct, the DD-ME2 functional's high-density EOS is too stiff, and its ~9% vector softening at 6.5 n0 brings the predicted maximum mass, radius, and tidal deformability into the range favored by NICER and GW170817.
  • The protected-extension framework gives a general recipe: calibrate a functional to finite nuclei, deform only the high-density vector channel, and let Bayesian evidence judge whether the deformation is needed.
  • The HIC flow pressure band is the main driver: removing it drops the Bayes factor from ~27 to ~0.3, so improved flow constraints will have direct leverage on this conclusion.
  • If a heavier nonrotating neutron star (e.g., 2.5 M_sun) were confirmed, the same framework predicts DD-PC1 would also require a high-density deformation (its Bayes factor turns positive).

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to apply the same protected-extension Bayes factor to other modern covariant functionals (e.g., DD-MEX, DD-LZ1, PC-PK1); the framework predicts they will sort into those needing and not needing the high-density softening, and the split itself would be informative about where the tension lies.
  • The result implies that generic nonparametric EOS reconstructions may obscure channel-specific information: the evidence gain here is tied to a mechanistic channel, so a future global fit that allows only the vector channel to vary could be more discriminating than a generic sound-speed parameterization.
  • The strong sensitivity to the HIC width (lnK drops from 27.6 to 6.5 when the band is doubled) suggests that the definitive test of this claim will come from a flow constraint with a full covariance matrix; if the true correlated uncertainty is larger than the digitized band, the 'strongly disfavored' verdict may soften.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a three-parameter, finite-nucleus-protected modification of the isoscalar-vector channel of the covariant density functionals DD-ME2 and DD-PC1. The deformation is switched on only above x_cut=1.35 n0 and approaches an asymptotic strength f_V; scalar and isovector channels are kept fixed. Using Bayesian evidence comparison with a combined likelihood of the 2002 HIC flow band, a maximum-mass bound, NICER mass-radius data, and GW170817 tidal data, the authors report lnK=26.67 in favor of the reshaped DD-ME2 over baseline DD-ME2, while DD-PC1 gives lnK=-0.44. Extensive sensitivity checks (prior windows, x_cut, HIC width and density interval, MultiNest scatter) and a finite-nucleus audit are presented.

Significance. Strengths: systematic internal-consistency checks; negative control DD-PC1; explicit Occam penalty; finite-nucleus protection verified to numerical precision; all central results accompanied by sensitivity tables. If the headline evidence ratio were robust, the result would be a useful diagnostic that DD-ME2's high-density vector repulsion is in tension with flow constraints while preserving finite-nucleus calibration. However, the headline number is conditional on a specific HIC likelihood, and the paper's own Table 4 shows that removing or weakening this term drastically reduces the effect. The controlled-diagnostic framing is sound, but the 'strongly disfavored' conclusion needs qualification.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (7)–(8); Table 4] The HIC flow term is the engine of the reported Bayes factor. The one-sided Gaussian with σ_j equal to half the digitized band width and no covariance treats 25 points of the 2002 Danielewicz band as independent Gaussian constraints. That band is an envelope produced by transport-model calculations; neighboring pressure points are strongly correlated, and transport systematics are not captured by this prescription. Table 4 shows the load-bearing nature: removing the HIC term changes lnK_DD-ME2 from 27.58 to 0.34, and inflating the width by a factor of two reduces it to 6.54. The abstract's 'strongly disfavored' (lnK=26.67) therefore depends on this specific representation. Please add a conservative HIC-likelihood variant (reduced effective number of constraints, a covariance matrix, or a hard-band treatment with an explicit systematic allowance) and qualify the wording in the abstract an
  2. [§2, Eq. (14); Table 6] The causal/stability filter is applied as a hard prior truncation of the reshaped parameter space, and the authors note that without it a non-negligible part of the DD-PC1 reshaped posterior has c_s^2>1. The negative control (the small/negative Bayes factor for DD-PC1) is central to the interpretation, but no sensitivity to the filter definition (the −0.05 tolerance and the 1.5–6.5 n0 interval) is presented. Please show that the DD-PC1 conclusion is stable under reasonable variations of the filter; if it is not, the negative-control claim should be stated more cautiously.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2, Eq. (10)] The KDE density b_ps is not explicitly normalized; please state the normalization convention so the NICER likelihood is reproducible.
  2. [Data availability] Please deposit the EOS tables, likelihood grids, and sampling scripts in a public repository before acceptance; the current 'available from authors upon reasonable request' hinders reproducibility of the evidence calculation.
  3. [Fig. 3] Show the 25 sampled densities u_j of the HIC constraint so that the one-sided penalty can be checked visually against the pressure bands.
  4. [Table 5] The prospective high-mass scenario is clearly labeled, but consider moving it to an appendix or separating it more sharply from the baseline evidence analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the reshaped-functional Bayesian comparison is a genuine model-selection calculation; sensitivity to the HIC likelihood is a robustness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central Bayes factor compares zero-parameter baselines (DD-ME2, DD-PC1) with three-parameter high-density deformations in Eqs. (2)–(5) using independent data: HIC flow, Mmax, NICER, and GW170817 (Eq. 6). The deformation is not defined in terms of the target result; it is a phenomenologically parameterized modification of the isoscalar-vector channel, and the data select fV < 0 for DD-ME2 only after the likelihood includes the HIC pressure band. The DD-PC1 negative control and the explicit Occam prior-volume penalty (Eqs. 14–15) make the comparison non-tautological. The strongest concern raised in the manuscript is correctly framed as a limitation, not circularity: Eq. (7) states the implementation "does not include a covariance matrix for point-to-point correlations or transport-model systematic uncertainties," and Table 4 shows that "Removing the HIC term almost eliminates the preference." This makes the magnitude of ln K sensitive to how the 2002 flow band is represented, but it does not make the evidence equivalent to the model input by construction. Likewise, the posterior R(M) and Lambda(M) curves are posterior predictions, not out-of-sample validations, but the paper does not present them as independent confirmations. I find no step in which a result is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The large influence of the HIC term and the unusual DOI in Ref. [16] are robustness issues for external review, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 8 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on three fitted parameters (f_V, x_t, w_t), two hand-chosen protection scales (x_cut = 1.35, x_on = 2.00), a hand-chosen causal-filter tolerance, the assumed correctness of the underlying CDF calibrations, and the load-bearing assumption that the 2002 HIC flow band is an unbiased, systematic-free constraint. The paper is transparent about most of these; the invented entity is a modification of an existing coupling rather than a new physical object.

free parameters (6)
  • f_V (asymptotic strength of vector-channel deformation) = -0.094 (posterior mode; 90% HPD [-0.134, -0.054])
    Fitted to the combined HIC+Mmax+NICER+GW170817 likelihood (Eq. 2, Table 6). Prior range [-0.20, 0.20] (Eq. 5). Posterior selects a net ~9% reduction of the vector coupling at 6.5 n0.
  • x_t (onset density of deformation) = 3.31 (posterior mode; 90% HPD [2.70, 4.58])
    Fitted onset of the tanh switch (Eq. 3). Prior range [1.35, 5.00].
  • w_t (width of deformation) = 1.54 (posterior mode; 90% HPD [0.80, 2.57])
    Fitted width of the tanh switch (Eq. 3). Prior range [0.40, 3.00].
  • x_cut (finite-nucleus protection cutoff) = 1.35
    Hand-chosen, not inferred: below this density the deformation is exactly zero (Eq. 4). Sensitivity tested at 1.20, 1.35, 1.50 (Table 3).
  • x_on (density where protection factor reaches 1) = 2.00
    Hand-chosen, not inferred (Eq. 4).
  • causal/stability filter tolerance = -0.05 <= c_s^2 <= 1
    Hand-chosen tolerance allowing slightly negative c_s^2 to absorb numerical differentiation noise (Sec. 3, Fig. 7); a non-negligible fraction of the reshaped DD-PC1 posterior is excluded by this filter.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption The DD-ME2 and DD-PC1 finite-nucleus calibrations (Refs. [42,43]) are correct as inputs.
    The whole strategy is to preserve these calibrations; their correctness is assumed, not re-derived (Sec. 1).
  • domain assumption The Danielewicz et al. (2002) HIC flow band is an unbiased constraint on P_SNM over 1.3-4.5 n0, with sigma_j = half-bandwidth and no covariance or transport-model systematics.
    Eqs. (7)-(8). Load-bearing: removing the HIC term drops the DD-ME2 Bayes factor from 27.58 to 0.34 (Table 4). The paper itself notes no covariance or transport-systematic treatment.
  • domain assumption The four likelihood terms are independent and additive (Eq. 6).
    No correlations between HIC, pulsar maximum mass, NICER, and GW170817 are modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper Only the isoscalar-vector channel is modified; f_S = f_TS = f_TV = 0 (Eq. 1).
    Model definition: the HIC constraint acts on symmetric matter, but transferability of this restriction to beta-equilibrated NS matter (where isovector terms matter) is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper The functional form of the switch S(x; x_t, w_t) is adequate (Eqs. 2-4).
    tanh times smoothstep; alternative forms would define a larger model space, acknowledged in Sec. 2.
  • domain assumption NICER posterior samples are faithfully represented by the 2D KDEs and the line-integral marginalization of Eq. (10).
    Likelihood construction depends on external posterior samples processed with unspecified KDE bandwidths.
  • standard math The density-dependent RMF rearrangement contribution, recomputed consistently, yields a thermodynamically consistent EOS with causal propagation.
    Standard DD-RMF framework [41].
  • domain assumption MultiNest evidence estimates with n_live = 2000 and 3 independent runs are converged to the quoted ~0.04-0.3 scatter.
    Table 6 reports small internal errors; grid diagnostics agree in sign/scale but differ in value (e.g., ln K = 27.76 vs 26.67 for x_cut = 1.35).
invented entities (1)
  • Finite-nucleus-protected high-density vector-channel deformation (the 'reshape') independent evidence
    purpose: A density-dependent modification Gamma_V(n) = Gamma_V^(0)(n)[1 + f_V S(x; x_t, w_t)] active only above 1.35 n0, intended to soften the high-density EOS of stiff CDFs without touching finite-nucleus predictions.
    New model element introduced here. It is fitted to the same HIC+NS data used to evaluate it, but the reshaped EOS makes falsifiable predictions (posterior M-R, tidal deformability, sound-speed profile) testable by future NICER/GW observations, and it is audited against a negative-control functional (DD-PC1).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14094 in / 24436 out tokens · 232696 ms · 2026-08-01T20:15:11.658962+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We construct a finite-nucleus-protected high-density extension of covariant density functionals by modifying only the isoscalar-vector channel outside the finite-nucleus calibration domain. The extension introduces three parameters controlling the strength, onset, and width of the high-density deformation, while the scalar and isovector channels are kept unchanged. A Bayesian analysis using heavy-ion flow constraints, massive-pulsar information, NICER mass-radius measurements, and the GW170817 tidal constraint shows that the original \ddme interaction is strongly disfavored relative to its protected high-density extension, with \(\ln K=\ln(Z_{\rm ext}/Z_{\rm base})=26.67\), where \(Z\) denotes the Bayesian evidence, after imposing a causal/stability filter on the reshaped EOS. In contrast, \ddpc serves as a reference functional for which the same extension is not required by the present data, giving \(\ln K=-0.44\). The result supports the interpretation that the proposed extension is not an unconstrained phenomenological patch: Bayesian evidence selects it only when demanded by the combined high-density data, while finite-nucleus observables remain unchanged within numerical precision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16683 by Jun-Hua Guo, Wen-Jie Xie.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Posterior distribution of the high-density reshaping parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Posterior deformation of the isoscalar-vector coupling. Solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior tidal deformability as a function of neutron-star mass. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Posterior pressure bands. Upper panel: symmetric nuclear mat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior distributions of Mmax, R1.4, and Λ1.4. Solid curves and shaded regions show the reshaped posterior distributions, dashed vertical lines denote the original no-reshape baselines, the dotted line marks the 2.08 M⊙ maximum mass reference, and the gray band indicates the GW170817-informed Λ1.4 reference range from Ref. [9]. 2 3 4 5 6 n/n0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 c 2 s = d P/d DD-ME2 reshape DD-PC1 re… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Posterior diagnostic for the squared sound speed in beta-equilibrated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Danielewicz, R

    P. Danielewicz, R. Lacey, W. G. Lynch, Determination of the equation of state of dense matter, Science 298 (2002) 1592–1596. doi:10.1126/science.1078070

    doi:10.1126/science.1078070 2002

  2. [2]

    Sorensen, et al., Dense nuclear matter equation of state from heavy-ion collisions, Prog

    A. Sorensen, et al., Dense nuclear matter equation of state from heavy-ion collisions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 134 (2024) 104080. doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104080

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Omana Kuttan, J

    M. Omana Kuttan, J. Steinheimer, K. Zhou, H. Stoecker, Qcd equation of state of dense nuclear matter from a bayesian analysis of heavy-ion col- lision data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 202303. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.202303

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.202303 2023

  4. [4]

    C. Y . Tsang, et al., Constraints on the neutron-star equa- tion of state from heavy-ion collisions, Nat. Astron. 8 (2024) 328–336. doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02161-z

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02161-z 2024

  5. [5]

    Antoniadis, et al., A massive pulsar in a com- pact relativistic binary, Science 340 (2013) 1233232

    J. Antoniadis, et al., A massive pulsar in a com- pact relativistic binary, Science 340 (2013) 1233232. doi:10.1126/science.1233232

    doi:10.1126/science.1233232 2013

  6. [6]

    H. T. Cromartie, et al., Relativistic shapiro delay measure- ments of an extremely massive millisecond pulsar, Nat. Astron. 4 (2020) 72–76. doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0880- 2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0880- 2020

  7. [7]

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V . Filippenko, T. G. Brink, W. Zheng, Psr j0952-0607: The fastest and heav- iest known galactic neutron star, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934 (2022) L17. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8007

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8007 2022

  8. [8]

    B. P. Abbott, et al., Gw170817: Observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 161101. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  9. [9]

    B. P. Abbott, et al., Gw170817: Measurements of neutron star radii and equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 161101. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101 2018

  10. [10]

    T. E. Riley, et al., A nicer view of the massive pul- sar psr j0740+6620 informed by radio timing and xmm- newton spectroscopy, Astrophys. J. Lett. 918 (2021) L27. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81 2021

  11. [11]

    M. C. Miller, et al., The radius of psr j0740+6620 from nicer and xmm-newton data, Astrophys. J. Lett. 918 (2021) L28. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b 2021

  12. [12]

    Choudhury, et al., A nicer view of the nearest and brightest millisecond pulsar: Psr j0437-4715, Astrophys

    D. Choudhury, et al., A nicer view of the nearest and brightest millisecond pulsar: Psr j0437-4715, Astrophys. J. Lett. 971 (2024) L20. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f 2024

  13. [13]

    Rutherford, et al., Constraining the dense matter equa- tion of state with new nicer mass-radius measurements and chiral effective field theory, Astrophys

    N. Rutherford, et al., Constraining the dense matter equa- tion of state with new nicer mass-radius measurements and chiral effective field theory, Astrophys. J. Lett. 971 (2024) L19. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f02

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f02 2024

  14. [14]

    Brandes, W

    L. Brandes, W. Weise, N. Kaiser, M. C. Miller, J. M. Lattimer, Implications of latest nicer data for the neutron star equation of state, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 034005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.034005

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.034005 2025

  15. [15]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y . Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, L. D. McLerran, M. Praszałowicz, Trace anomaly as signature of conformality in neutron stars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 252702. arXiv:2207.06753, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.252702

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Li, Trace anomaly of cold dense matter con- strained by collective flow, arXiv preprint (2026)

    B.-A. Li, Trace anomaly of cold dense matter con- strained by collective flow, arXiv preprint (2026). arXiv:2601.13374, doi:10.1103/b2t4-km2r

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    G. Raaijmakers, et al., Constraints on the dense matter equation of state and neutron star properties from nicer’s mass-radius estimate of psr j0740+6620 and multimes- senger observations, Astrophys. J. Lett. 918 (2021) L29. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac089a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac089a 2021

  18. [18]

    Legred, K

    I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, R. Essick, S. Han, P. Landry, Impact of the psr j0740+6620 radius constraint on the properties of high-density matter, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 063003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063003

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.063003 2021

  19. [19]

    Huth, et al., Constraining neutron-star matter with mi- croscopic and macroscopic collisions, Nature 606 (2022) 276–280

    S. Huth, et al., Constraining neutron-star matter with mi- croscopic and macroscopic collisions, Nature 606 (2022) 276–280. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04750-w

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04750-w 2022

  20. [20]

    Brandes, W

    L. Brandes, W. Weise, N. Kaiser, Inference of dense-matter equation-of-state properties from neutron- star observations, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 014011. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.014011. 9

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.014011 2023

  21. [21]

    Essick, P

    R. Essick, P. Landry, A. Schwenk, I. Tews, Detailed examination of astrophysical constraints on the symme- try energy and the neutron skin of pb-208 with minimal modeling assumptions, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 065804. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.065804

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.107.065804 2023

  22. [22]

    Jiang, C

    J.-L. Jiang, C. Ecker, L. Rezzolla, Bayesian analysis of neutron-star properties with parameterized equations of state: The role of the likelihood, Astrophys. J. 949 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c7

  24. [24]

    P. T. H. Pang, I. Tews, M. W. Coughlin, M. Bulla, C. Van Den Broeck, T. Dietrich, Nuclear-physics mul- timessenger astrophysics constraints on the neutron- star equation of state, Nat. Commun. 15 (2024) 4099. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-48378-y

    doi:10.1038/s41467-024-48378-y 2024

  25. [25]

    Drischler, S

    C. Drischler, S. Han, J. M. Lattimer, M. Prakash, S. Reddy, T. Zhao, Limiting masses and radii of neu- tron stars and their implications, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 045808. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.103.045808

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.103.045808 2021

  26. [26]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. W. Holt, C. Wellenhofer, Chiral effec- tive field theory and the high-density nuclear equation of state, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71 (2021) 403–432. doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419-041903

    doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419-041903 2021

  27. [27]

    Keller, K

    J. Keller, K. Hebeler, 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 (2023) 072701. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.072701

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.072701 2023

  28. [28]

    Komoltsev, A

    O. Komoltsev, A. Kurkela, How perturbative qcd constrains the equation of state at neutron-star densities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 202701. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.202701

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.202701 2022

  29. [29]

    Gorda, O

    T. Gorda, O. Komoltsev, A. Kurkela, Ab-initio qcd calculations impact the inference of the neutron- star-matter equation of state, JHEP 06 (2023) 002. doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2023)002

    doi:10.1007/jhep06(2023)002 2023

  30. [30]

    Gorda, O

    T. Gorda, O. Komoltsev, A. Kurkela, Neutron star equa- tion of state from qcd at high densities, Astrophys. J. 950 (2023) 107. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acce3a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acce3a 2023

  31. [31]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. Nättilä, A. Vuorinen, Evidence for quark-matter cores in massive neutron stars, Nat. Phys. 16 (2020) 907–910. doi:10.1038/s41567-020- 0914-9

    doi:10.1038/s41567-020- 2020

  32. [32]

    Altiparmak, C

    S. Altiparmak, C. Ecker, L. Rezzolla, On the sound speed in neutron stars, Astrophys. J. Lett. 939 (2022) L34. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b2a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b2a 2022

  33. [33]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, J. Hirvonen, O. Komoltsev, A. Kurkela, J. Nättilä, A. Vuorinen, Strongly inter- acting matter exhibits deconfined behavior in mas- sive neutron stars, Nat. Commun. 14 (2023) 8451. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-44051-y

    doi:10.1038/s41467-023-44051-y 2023

  34. [34]

    Marczenko, L

    M. Marczenko, L. McLerran, K. Redlich, C. Sasaki, Reaching percolation and conformal limits in neutron stars, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 025802. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.025802

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.107.025802 2023

  35. [35]

    Takátsy, P

    J. Takátsy, P. Kovács, G. Wolf, Neutron star properties from a bayesian analysis of the equa- tion of state, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 043002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.043002 2023

  36. [36]

    Mroczek, J

    D. Mroczek, J. Noronha-Hostler, P. Parotto, C. Ratti, Bayesian analysis of neutron-star equations of state with speed-of-sound constraints, Phys. Rev. C 110 (2024) 015801. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110.015801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.110.015801 2024

  37. [37]

    Y . Lim, J. W. Holt, Bayesian modeling of the nuclear equation of state for neutron-star matter, Phys. Rev. C 109 (2024) 035801. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.035801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.109.035801 2024

  38. [38]

    Kaiser, W

    N. Kaiser, W. Weise, Dense nuclear matter and neutron stars: A chiral effective field theory perspective, Universe 10 (2024) 95. doi:10.3390/universe10020095

    work page doi:10.3390/universe10020095 2024

  39. [39]

    B. D. Serot, J. D. Walecka, The relativistic nuclear many- body problem, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 16 (1986) 1–327

    1986

  40. [40]

    Vretenar, A

    D. Vretenar, A. V . Afanasjev, G. A. Lalazissis, P. Ring, Relativistic hartree-bogoliubov theory: Static and dy- namic aspects of exotic nuclear structure, Phys. Rep. 409 (2005) 101–259. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.10.001

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.10.001 2005

  41. [41]

    Nikši ´c, D

    T. Nikši ´c, D. Vretenar, P. Ring, Relativistic nu- clear energy density functionals: Mean-field and be- yond, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66 (2011) 519–548. doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2011.01.055

    doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2011.01.055 2011

  42. [42]

    Typel, H

    S. Typel, H. H. Wolter, Relativistic mean field calcu- lations with density-dependent meson-nucleon coupling, Nucl. Phys. A 656 (1999) 331–364. doi:10.1016/S0375- 9474(99)00310-3

    doi:10.1016/s0375- 1999

  43. [43]

    G. A. Lalazissis, T. Nikši ´c, D. Vretenar, P. Ring, New relativistic mean-field interaction with density-dependent meson-nucleon couplings, Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 024312. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.71.024312

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.71.024312 2005

  44. [44]

    Nikši ´c, D

    T. Nikši ´c, D. Vretenar, P. Finelli, P. Ring, Relativistic hartree-bogoliubov model with density-dependent meson- nucleon couplings, Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008) 034318. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.78.034318

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.78.034318 2008

  45. [45]

    Salinas, J

    M. Salinas, J. Piekarewicz, B. K. Agrawal, Bayesian con- straints on relativistic mean-field models from nuclear and neutron-star observables, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 045801. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.045801

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.107.045801 2023

  46. [46]

    T. E. Riley, et al., A nicer view of psr j0030+0451: Mil- lisecond pulsar parameter estimation, Astrophys. J. Lett. 887 (2019) L21. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c. 10

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c 2019

  47. [47]

    M. C. Miller, et al., Psr j0030+0451 mass and radius from nicer data and implications for the properties of neutron star matter, Astrophys. J. Lett. 887 (2019) L24. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 2019

  48. [48]

    B. P. Abbott, et al., Properties of the binary neutron star merger gw170817, Phys. Rev. X 9 (2019) 011001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.011001 2019

  49. [49]

    Abbott, et al., GW190814: Gravitational waves from the coalescence of a 23 solar mass black hole with a 2.6 solar mass compact object, Astrophys

    R. Abbott, et al., GW190814: Gravitational waves from the coalescence of a 23 solar mass black hole with a 2.6 solar mass compact object, Astrophys. J. Lett. 896 (2020) L44. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f 2020

  50. [50]

    E. R. Most, L. J. Papenfort, L. R. Weih, L. Rezzolla, A lower bound on the maximum mass if the secondary in GW190814 was once a rapidly spinning neutron star, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett. 499 (2020) L82–L86. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa168

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa168 2020

  51. [51]

    Zhang, B.-A

    N.-B. Zhang, B.-A. Li, GW190814’s secondary compo- nent with mass 2.50–2.67m⊙ as a superfast pulsar, Astro- phys. J. 902 (2020) 38. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb470

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb470 2020

  52. [52]

    F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz, B. Reed, GW190814: Impact of a 2.6 solar mass neutron star on the nucleonic equations of state, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 065805. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.102.065805

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.102.065805 2020

  53. [53]

    Fan, M.-Z

    Y .-Z. Fan, M.-Z. Han, J.-L. Jiang, D.-S. Shao, S.-P. Tang, Maximum gravitational massm tov =2.25 +0.08 −0.07m⊙ in- ferred at about 3% precision with multimessenger data of neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 043052. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043052. 11

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.043052 2024