NNStar: An end-to-end AI agent for nuclear matter and neutron star physics

Jia-Ying Xiong; Yao Ma; Yong-Liang Ma

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

NNStar: An end-to-end AI agent for nuclear matter and neutron star physics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A portable AI skill lets a general LLM agent read a nuclear model, fit its couplings, and report neutron-star and nuclear-matter observables without human intervention.

desk verdict A genuinely useful agent-skill for RMF-to-neutron-star work, but the autonomous-fit demo returns an unstable Lagrangian and the benchmark overclaims. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13930 v1 pith:VIXAULM7 submitted 2026-07-15 nucl-th astro-ph.HEphysics.comp-ph

Yao Ma , Yong-Liang Ma , Jia-Ying Xiong This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-thastro-ph.HEphysics.comp-ph

keywords NNStarportableskilllargelanguagemodelagentrelativisticmean-fieldequationofstateneutronstarTOVBayesianjointanalysis

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

This paper tries to establish that the slow, manual work of constraining a dense-matter effective model—fitting its couplings against nuclear-matter data, neutron-star masses and radii, and tidal deformability—can be delegated end to end to a general-purpose AI agent. Its proposal, NNStar, is a portable skill: a documented bundle of symbolic and numerical physics code that any compliant large-language-model agent can load and drive. The agent builds the model from a Lagrangian, derives and solves the mean-field equations, constructs the beta-equilibrium equation of state with a crust, integrates the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equations, and scores the result with a Bayesian joint analysis. The authors validate the skill on three established relativistic mean-field models, use it to add a sextic scalar term to one model and re-optimize the couplings against data, and benchmark several contemporary LLMs with and without the skill. If the claim holds, the manual fine-tuning bottleneck in equation-of-state inference disappears, and such analyses become reproducible and auditable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the NNStar skill itself: a self-contained module that pairs a specification file with executable physics code, exposing a layered forward pipeline. The pipeline starts from a general quantum hadrodynamical Lagrangian, symbolically derives the relativistic mean-field equations of motion, numerically solves for the meson fields and saturation properties, constructs beta-equilibrium matter (the charge-neutral composition reached by weak interactions), splices the high-density equation of state onto a low-density crust, integrates the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equations for masses, radii, and tidal deformability, and scores the model through a Bayesian joint analysis again

What would settle it

Recompute the saturation properties and mass-radius curves of the three established models with an independently written solver using the original publications' full-precision couplings, and compare point by point with the skill's Table I; a discrepancy in the incompressibility beyond the stated rounding (~7%) or a radius shift larger than ~0.1 km would show the skill's physics stack is not faithful, and with it every downstream agent result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the core claim is that a deterministic, model-agnostic physics stack—not the language model's parametric memory—can carry the entire forward-and-inference pipeline, and that packaging this stack as a platform-agnostic skill makes the capability transferable across any sufficiently capable LLM agent. A user makes a natural-language request; the agent reads the skill specification, invokes the bundled code for each step, and returns saturation properties, mass-radius curves, and statistical scores. The skill reproduces three established relativistic mean-field models' published saturation properties and mass-radius behavior to rounding level, and when the agent extend

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the skill's bundled physics code—the symbolic derivation, mean-field solver, crust matching, and TOV integration—faithfully implements the standard physics; if a latent bug or approximation error sits in that stack, every agent output inherits it, and the validation's main comparison is to a companion paper sharing the skill's code lineage rather than to fully independent implementations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A researcher can hand the agent a published Lagrangian and receive its nuclear-matter properties, mass-radius curve, and fit quality without writing pipeline code.
Because the capability travels as a skill, different LLM agents can load the same physics backend, making the physics independent of the reasoning model.
Extending the physics—new interaction terms, new constraints, new observables—is a matter of editing a declarative model definition and the tool catalog, not rewriting the agent.
Since outputs come from deterministic code, results are auditable and reproducible, and the benchmark against deterministic ground truth can be rerun for any future LLM.
The demonstrated workflow of adding an interaction and re-optimizing can be repeated for other model extensions, including chiral effective models, hyperons, or quark degrees of freedom.

Reading between the lines

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

If such a skill becomes widely used, the practical bottleneck in dense-matter equation-of-state inference shifts from numerical implementation to model choice and interpretation; different groups' fits would share one pipeline, making disagreements traceable to physics rather than code.
The same 'portable skill' pattern should transfer to other inference problems with a deterministic forward map and a likelihood, such as chiral effective field theory fits or gravitational-wave parameter estimation; the paper does not claim this generality.
The validation relies most heavily on a companion paper that shares code lineage with the skill, so the strongest independent test would be reproducing the original model papers directly from their full-precision parameter tables; the paper reports agreement but does not present that comparison.
The remaining radius tension in the sextic-augmented fit suggests an immediate testable extension the paper does not run: equipping the agent with a richer isovector sector and checking whether the agent can bring the 1.4-solar-mass radius into the observed range while keeping the maximum mass above two solar masses.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read this if you care about automation of dense-matter EoS work. The paper delivers NNStar as a portable skill for LLM agent platforms: a deterministic stack that derives mean-field EOMs from a supplied Lagrangian, computes saturation properties, builds beta-equilibrium EoS, splices crust, runs TOV, and scores via a Bayesian joint analysis. That artifact is real and new; the code is promised on GitHub. The validation on TM1, NL3, and FSU-δ6.7 is a genuine sanity check, and the few-percent deviations in K are plausibly explained by rounded published couplings. The explicit equivalence between BJA and -χ²/2 is correctly derived.

The soft spots are not fatal to the tool, but they matter. First, the σ6-augmented TM1 fit returns a negative sextic coupling, which makes the scalar potential unbounded below. The agent reports χ², M_max, and R_1.4 with no stability check and even calls the radius an 'honest limitation.' By signing off on an invalid Lagrangian, the demonstration contradicts the 'without human intervention' claim: a human must audit physicality. The fix is easy—add a vacuum-stability check to the optimization protocol and re-run. Second, the validation table compares against the authors' own Ref. [64] rather than the original model papers. That is understandable—the GQHD implementation is theirs—but it weakens independent confirmation. Third, the benchmark text says every model that engages the skill reproduces the NM quantities 'essentially exactly,' but per-run Table IV shows Kimi returning errors of 50–100% on matter properties. The averaged Table III hides this; the benchmark should report per-run failures honestly. Also, the benchmark ground truth is the tool stack's own output, which is fine for testing agent grounding but not physics correctness.

None of this kills the central idea. The skill architecture is sound, the physics stack is standard, and with a stability check and a more careful benchmark narrative, this would be a solid contribution. As written, it deserves a serious referee but needs revision. I'd send it to review, with a request that the authors address the σ6 potential stability, add an independent validation point, and fix the benchmark reporting.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces NNStar, a portable LLM-agent 'skill' for automating relativistic mean-field (RMF) modeling of nuclear matter and neutron stars. The skill is designed to (i) construct an RMF model from a Lagrangian, (ii) symbolically derive and solve the mean-field equations, (iii) compute saturation properties, (iv) build a beta-equilibrium EoS, splice on the BPS crust, integrate the TOV equations, and (v) score the model via a Bayesian joint analysis. The authors validate the skill on TM1, NL3, and FSU-delta6.7, demonstrate an autonomous fit of a sigma^6-extended TM1 model, and benchmark six LLMs with and without the skill. The central claim is that the agent can read, fit, and report nuclear-matter and neutron-star observables end-to-end without human intervention.

Significance. If the pipeline is correct, the skill-based architecture is a genuinely useful contribution: it provides a deterministic, auditable physics backend that can be loaded by any compliant LLM agent, and the public code/data availability supports reproducibility. The derivation of the BJA-to-chi^2 equivalence in App. A is correct, and the separation of LLM planning from deterministic physics execution is a sensible design. However, the load-bearing demonstrations currently have weaknesses: the validation relies on a same-author reference rather than independent published values, the benchmark defines ground truth as the tool stack's own output, and the only autonomous fitting example returns a scalar potential that is unbounded below. These issues must be addressed before the end-to-end claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)

[Sec. VI.B, Eq. (8) and Eq. (2)] The optimized Lagrangian is obtained by adding -g_s6 sigma^6/6 to TM1, and the agent reports g_s6 = -2.9e-4 MeV^-2. With the sign convention of Eq. (2), the scalar potential contains +(1/6)g_s6 sigma^6, so V(sigma) -> -infinity as |sigma| -> infinity. The optimization objective (8) has no stability constraint, and the skill does not check or flag this. The agent nevertheless reports chi^2=7.2, M_max=2.11 M_sun, R_1.4=14.3 km and describes only the radius as a limitation. Since this is the only autonomous fitting demonstration, the claim that the agent operates 'without human intervention' is not supported: a human must audit the physicality of the fitted Lagrangian. Add a vacuum-stability check (e.g., require the potential to be bounded below with a positive highest-order coefficient) to the skill and re-run the example; if the optimum remains unphysical, the sigma^6 extension should be
[Sec. VI.A, Table I and Sec. VII.A] The validation compares the skill's output with 'Ref.' values taken from Ref. [64], which is a same-author paper (Y. Ma, Y.-L. Ma, J.-Y. Xiong, arXiv:2603.01933), not the original publications for TM1, NL3, and FSU-delta6.7. The benchmark in Sec. VII.A then defines deterministic ground truth as 'computed by the tool stack itself.' Thus the evidence that the deterministic physics stack is correct is largely internal consistency; a systematic error shared with Ref. [64] would not be detected. Please compare against the original published saturation properties and M-R curves (or an independent code), and clarify that Table I is a comparison to a same-author reference rather than to the original model papers.
[Sec. VII.B, Tables III and IV] The text states that the skill-equipped mode is 'uniformly improved' and that grounding makes the computation 'deterministic ... largely independent of the underlying model.' The data do not fully support this. Kimi-K2.6 with the skill has 2/3 valid runs with mean errors of roughly 101% in matter, 80% in M, and 75% in R; the per-run table shows outputs that are far from the reference values (e.g., Kimi run 16). Qwen3.7-Max has only 2/3 valid runs. The benchmark is explicitly proof-of-concept, but the conclusions should be qualified to reflect that cross-model determinism is not demonstrated, especially for the weaker LLMs.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. VI.B] The text says 'all seven couplings ... are freed' but then lists eight parameters: g_sigma, g_omega, g_rho, g_s3, g_s4, c_3, g_s6, and m_sigma. Fix the count.
[Sec. VI.B vs. App. A] The optimization protocol states that minimizing chi^2 is 'identical, up to an additive constant, to the BJA log-likelihood of Eq. (A4).' The explicit equivalence is actually Eq. (A5); update the cross-reference.
[Sec. VII.A] The phrase 'six observables of Sec. III' is inaccurate: Sec. III defines the model, not the observables. The six observables are enumerated in Sec. VII.A itself. Reword to avoid the incorrect cross-reference.
[Sec. IV.C and Sec. VI.A] The skill is said to support 'import a model directly from the literature' (e.g., from a PDF), but the validation in Sec. VI.A appears to use built-in parameterizations. Clarify whether the PDF-reading capability was exercised, and if not, state that it remains to be validated.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Benchmark ground truth is the tool stack's own output and Table I validates against the same authors' Ref. [64]; the central RMF/TOV/BJA derivation remains standard and externally checkable.

self definitional [Sec. VII.A (Benchmarks, Task suite and metrics)]
"dense-matter physics admits a deterministic ground truth: the correct value of any NM or NS observable for a given Lagrangian is fixed by the field equations and computed by the tool stack itself. This allows us to score the agent against exact references rather than human judgment"

The benchmark's 'exact reference' is defined as the output of the very tool stack the agent is being tested on. A skill-equipped agent that successfully invokes the bundled code returns exactly that reference by construction, so the near-zero errors in Table III demonstrate tool invocation, not independent physical correctness. The NM/NS observables treated as predictions are definitionally equal to the tool's own computation, so this protocol cannot validate the skill; it only checks whether the LLM calls the tool.
self citation load bearing [Sec. VI.A (Validation on Walecka-type models), Table I]
"Table I compares the saturation properties recovered by the skill with the values obtained in Ref. [64]."

Ref. [64] is the authors' own preceding paper by Y. Ma, Y.-L. Ma, and J.-Y. Xiong. The validation's 'published values' are therefore same-author outputs, not the original independent TM1/NL3/FSU publications cited as [65]-[67]. The end-to-end correctness claim reduces to agreement with a same-lineage reference; the table never compares directly against the external original values. Because the underlying mean-field and TOV equations are standard physics, this is load-bearing self-citation rather than full definitional circularity, but it does not constitute independent confirmation.

full rationale

The central physics derivation — symbolic construction of mean-field EOMs from the Lagrangian, RMF solution, beta-equilibrium EoS, crust matching, TOV integration, and Bayesian joint analysis — is standard, self-contained, and not circular. Eq. (A5) explicitly identifies BJA with -1/2 chi^2 + C, an algebraic identity rather than a hidden fitted-input-as-prediction. The main circularity concerns are in the validation/support structure. First, Sec. VII.A defines the benchmark ground truth as the output of the tool stack itself, making a successfully tool-invoking agent's agreement with that reference tautological. Second, Sec. VI.A validates the skill against Ref. [64], the same authors' prior paper, rather than against the original TM1/NL3/FSU publications; the external papers are cited but do not supply the table's 'Ref.' values. The original Walecka-type models do provide independent anchors for the physics, and the equations of state are externally checkable, so the central workflow retains real content. However, the paper's evidence for 'validated end-to-end' operation relies on these two self-referential supports, giving partial circularity in the demonstration rather than in the physics itself. No uniqueness theorem, hidden ansatz, or renamed empirical result was found.

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

The paper's central contribution is a software skill; it introduces no new physical entities. It relies on a set of modeling choices and on a validation benchmark that is partly self-referential (Ref. [64] and the tool-stack-as-ground-truth). The σ6 fit introduces eight fitted couplings.

free parameters (8)

mσ = 492.4 MeV
Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.
gσ = -9.93
Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.
gω = 12.86
Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.
gρ = 3.89
Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.
gs3 = 1743
Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.
gs4 = -0.62
Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.
c3 = 107.6
Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.
gs6 = -2.9e-4 MeV^-2
Fitted by the agent in Sec. VI.B via χ² minimization.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Mean-field (Hartree) approximation for the RMF model: meson fields replaced by their expectation values; Fock terms neglected.
Sec. V.A states 'The current skill retains only the direct (Hartree) contributions'.
standard math TOV equations describe hydrostatic equilibrium of static neutron stars in general relativity.
Sec. V.B uses the TOV equation as the stellar structure model.
domain assumption BPS crust matched to the core at n_b = 0.08 fm^-3.
Sec. VI.A: 'the fixed crust–core matching at n_b = 0.08 fm^-3'.
domain assumption β-equilibrium and charge neutrality in the stellar interior.
Sec. III: 'under charge neutrality and β-equilibrium'.
domain assumption Uniform priors within allowed parameter ranges in the Bayesian analysis.
Sec. V.C: 'the prior (temporarily taken as uniform within the allowed ranges for simplicity)'.
ad hoc to paper The GQHD Lagrangian (Eq. 2) is general enough to contain TM1, NL3, and FSU as special cases.
Sec. III states this without proof; it is the substrate on which the skill operates.
ad hoc to paper Benchmark ground truth is defined as the output of the tool stack itself, not an external measurement.
Sec. VII: 'the correct value of any NM or NS observable for a given Lagrangian is fixed by the field equations and computed by the tool stack itself'.
domain assumption The empirical constraints in Eq. (8) are imposed at 1σ and represent the complete dataset for the σ6 fit.
Sec. VI.B lists the constraints used in the χ² objective.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NNStar: An end-to-end AI agent for nuclear matter and neutron star physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VIXAULM7

@misc{pith2026260713930,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NNStar: An end-to-end AI agent for nuclear matter and neutron star physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VIXAULM7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13930}
}

abstract

Constraining the equation of state of dense matter requires confronting effective models with massive data that spans many orders of magnitude in scale, from sub-saturation nuclear matter properties to the masses, radii, and tidal deformabilities of neutron stars. Exploring the high-dimensional coupling space of such a model and fine tuning it against all of these constraints is a labor- and time-intensive task. We present \textsc{NNStar}, an end-to-end artificial-intelligence agent that automates this workflow. Rather than a bespoke application, \textsc{NNStar} is delivered as a portable \emph{skill} for an open large-language-model (LLM) agent platform -- a self-describing module that pairs worked usage conventions with symbolic and numerical physics engines that (i) build a relativistic mean-field model directly from a Lagrangian, (ii) solve the mean-field equations of motion and evaluate the saturation properties, (iii) construct the $\beta$-equilibrium equation of state, splice it to a crust, and integrate the Tolman--Oppenheimer--Volkoff equations, and (iv) score the resulting predictions through a Bayesian joint analysis against nuclear matter and astrophysical observations. The agent can read a model, fit its parameters, and report the full set of nuclear matter and neutron star observables without human intervention. \textsc{NNStar} therefore provides a new, AI-driven framework for analyzing nuclear matter and neutron-star observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13930 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Mass–radius curves for TM1, NL3, and FSU [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Mass–radius curves of the original TM1 (solid) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

White dwarf-neutron star matter transition and the effect of light elements
nucl-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A unified relativistic mean-field model connects white dwarfs to neutron stars and finds light-element seeds shift neutron star radii by roughly 0.2 km at 1.4 solar masses.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[64]

Ma, Y.-L

Y. Ma, Y.-L. Ma, and J.-Y. Xiong, (2026), arXiv:2603.01933 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2026
[1]

Fukushima and C

K. Fukushima and C. Sasaki, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.72, 99 (2013), arXiv:1301.6377 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2013
[2]

J. W. Holt, M. Rho, and W. Weise, Phys. Rept.621, 2 (2016), arXiv:1411.6681 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2016
[3]

G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, and T. Takatsuka, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 056902 (2018), arXiv:1707.04966 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2018
[4]

Ma and M

Y.-L. Ma and M. Rho, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.113, 103791 (2020), arXiv:1909.05889 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2020
[5]

G. F. Burgio, H. J. Schulze, I. Vidana, and J. B. Wei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.120, 103879 (2021), arXiv:2105.03747 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2021
[6]

Ma and M

Y.-L. Ma and M. Rho, AAPPS Bull.31, 16 (2021), arXiv:2103.00744 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2021
[7]

Brandes and W

L. Brandes and W. Weise, Symmetry16, 111 (2024), arXiv:2312.11937 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2024

Show all 90 references

[8]

A. P. Gupta, Int. J. Sci. Res. Eng. Mgmt10, 1 (2026)

2026
[9]

Demorest, T

P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, and J. Hessels, Nature467, 1081 (2010)

2010
[10]

Antoniadiset al., Science340, 6131 (2013)

J. Antoniadiset al., Science340, 6131 (2013)

2013
[11]

Fonsecaet al., Astrophys

E. Fonsecaet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L12 (2021)

2021
[12]

B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017)

2017
[13]

B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018)

2018
[14]

Vinciguerraet al., Astrophys

S. Vinciguerraet al., Astrophys. J.961, 62 (2024), arXiv:2308.09469 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[15]

Salmiet al., Astrophys

T. Salmiet al., Astrophys. J.974, 294 (2024), arXiv:2406.14466 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[16]

Choudhuryet al., Astrophys

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

2024 arXiv
[17]

A NICER view of the 1.4 solar-mass edge-on pulsar PSR J0614–3329,

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

2025
[18]

Dutra, O

M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, S. S. Avancini, B. V. Carlson, A. Delfino, D. P. Menezes, C. Providˆ encia, S. Typel, and J. R. Stone, Phys. Rev. C90, 055203 (2014), arXiv:1405.3633 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[19]

J. M. Lattimer and Y. Lim, The Astrophysical Journal 771, 51 (2013)

2013
[20]

Danielewicz and J

P. Danielewicz and J. Lee, Nucl. Phys. A922, 1 (2014), arXiv:1307.4130 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[21]

Le F` evre, Y

A. Le F` evre, Y. Leifels, W. Reisdorf, J. Aichelin, and C. Hartnack, Nucl. Phys. A945, 112 (2016), arXiv:1501.05246 [nucl-ex]

2016 arXiv
[22]

B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 232502 (2013), arXiv:1308.3664 [nucl-th]

2013 arXiv
[23]

B. T. Reed, F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 172503 (2021), arXiv:2101.03193 [nucl-th]

2021 arXiv
[24]

Vaswani, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

A. Vaswani, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

2017
[25]

Radovic, M

A. Radovic, M. Williams, D. Rousseau, M. Kagan, D. Bonacorsi, A. Himmel, A. Aurisano, K. Terao, and T. Wongjirad, Nature560, 41 (2018)

2018
[26]

Carleo, I

G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, and L. Zdeborov´ a, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 045002 (2019), arXiv:1903.10563 [physics.comp-ph]

2019 arXiv
[27]

Goodfellow, J

I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Ben- gio, Communications of the ACM63, 139 (2020)

2020
[28]

Boehnleinet al., Rev

A. Boehnleinet al., Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 031003 (2022)

2022
[29]

K. Zhou, L. Wang, L.-G. Pang, and S. Shi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.135, 104084 (2024), arXiv:2303.15136 [hep- ph]

2024 arXiv
[30]

Fujimoto, K

Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, and K. Murase, Phys. Rev. D101, 054016 (2020), arXiv:1903.03400 [nucl-th]

2020 arXiv
[31]

Wang, Y.-G

R. Wang, Y.-G. Ma, R. Wada, L.-W. Chen, W.-B. He, H.-L. Liu, and K.-J. Sun, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043202 (2020), arXiv:2010.15043 [nucl-th]

2020 arXiv
[32]

Morawski and M

F. Morawski and M. Bejger, Astron. Astrophys.642, A78 (2020), arXiv:2006.07194 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[33]

M. U. Anil, K. Banerjee, T. Malik, and C. Providˆ encia, JCAP01, 045 (2022), arXiv:2004.14196 [physics.comp- ph]

2022 arXiv
[34]

X. H. Wu, Z. X. Ren, and P. W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 105, L031303 (2022), arXiv:2105.07696 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[35]

Han, J.-L

M.-Z. Han, J.-L. Jiang, S.-P. Tang, and Y.-Z. Fan, As- trophys. J.919, 11 (2021), arXiv:2103.05408 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[36]

Fujimoto, K

Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, L. D. McLerran, and M. Praszalowicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 252702 (2022), arXiv:2207.06753 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[37]

S. Soma, L. Wang, S. Shi, H. St¨ ocker, and K. Zhou, JCAP08, 071 (2022), arXiv:2201.01756 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[38]

Omana Kuttan, J

M. Omana Kuttan, J. Steinheimer, K. Zhou, and H. Stoecker, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 202303 (2023), arXiv:2211.11670 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[39]

W. He, Q. Li, Y. Ma, Z. Niu, J. Pei, and Y. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 282001 (2023), arXiv:2301.06396 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[40]

Guo, J.-Y

L.-J. Guo, J.-Y. Xiong, Y. Ma, and Y.-L. Ma, Astrophys. J.965, 47 (2024), arXiv:2309.11227 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[41]

Chatterjee, H

S. Chatterjee, H. Sudhakaran, and R. Mallick, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1291 (2024), arXiv:2302.13648 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[42]

He, Y.-G

W.-B. He, Y.-G. Ma, L.-G. Pang, H.-C. Song, and K. Zhou, Nucl. Sci. Tech.34, 88 (2023), arXiv:2303.06752 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[43]

L.-J. Guo, Y. Ma, Y.-L. Ma, R.-X. Wu, and Y.-L. Wu, (2024), arXiv:2410.06088 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[44]

Y¨ uksel, D

E. Y¨ uksel, D. Soydaner, and H. Bahtiyar, Phys. Rev. C 109, 064322 (2024), arXiv:2401.02824 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[45]

Ventagli and I

G. Ventagli and I. D. Saltas, JCAP01, 073 (2025), arXiv:2405.17908 [astro-ph.HE]

2025 arXiv
[46]

Ferreira and M

M. Ferreira and M. Bejger, Phys. Rev. D111, 023035 (2025), arXiv:2403.14266 [nucl-th]

2025 arXiv
[47]

W. Zhou, H. Shen, J. Hu, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043017 (2024), arXiv:2407.11447 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[48]

N. K. Patra, T. Malik, H. Pais, K. Zhou, B. K. Agrawal, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Lett. B865, 139470 (2025), arXiv:2502.20226 [nucl-th]

2025 arXiv
[49]

Kovlakas, D

K. Kovlakas, D. De Grandis, and N. Rea, Astron. Astro- phys.701, A267 (2025), arXiv:2509.03090 [astro-ph.HE]

2025 arXiv
[50]

W. Liu, L. Wang, and Z. Zhu, (2026), arXiv:2604.05428 [astro-ph.HE]

2026 arXiv
[51]

J. D. Baker, C. A. Bertulani, and R. V. Lobato, (2026), arXiv:2604.24949 [astro-ph.HE]

2026 arXiv
[52]

Bezerra, V

G. Bezerra, V. Dexheimer, and R. Negreiros, (2026), arXiv:2605.31198 [astro-ph.HE]

2026 arXiv
[53]

S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. Narasimhan, and Y. Cao, (2022), arXiv:2210.03629 [cs.CL]

2022 arXiv
[54]

Schick, J

T. Schick, J. Dwivedi-Yu, R. Dess ` ı, R. Raileanu, 14 M. Lomeli, L. Zettlemoyer, N. Cancedda, and T. Scialom, (2023), arXiv:2302.04761 [cs.CL]

2023 arXiv
[55]

Zheng, Z

T. Zheng, Z. Deng, H. T. Tsang, W. Wang, J. Bai, Z. Wang, and Y. Song, (2025), arXiv:2505.13259 [cs.CL]

2025
[56]

A. M. Bran, S. Cox, O. Schilter, C. Baldassari, A. D. White, and P. Schwaller, Nature Mach. Intell.6, 525 (2024), arXiv:2304.05376 [physics.chem-ph]

2024 arXiv
[57]

D. A. Boiko, R. MacKnight, B. Kline, and G. Gomes, Nature624, 570 (2023)

2023
[58]

C. Lu, C. Lu, R. T. Lange, J. Foerster, J. Clune, and D. Ha, (2024), arXiv:2408.06292 [cs.AI]

2024 arXiv
[59]

Yamada, R

Y. Yamada, R. T. Lange, C. Lu, S. Hu, C. Lu, J. Foerster, J. Clune, and D. Ha, (2025), arXiv:2504.08066 [cs.AI]

2025 arXiv
[60]

Introducing the Model Context Protocol,

Anthropic, “Introducing the Model Context Protocol,”https://www.anthropic.com/news/ model-context-protocol(2024)

2024
[61]

Equipping agents for the real world with Agent Skills,

Anthropic, “Equipping agents for the real world with Agent Skills,”https://agentskills.io(2025)

2025
[62]

Y. Zou, A. H. Cheng, A. Aldossary, J. Bai, S. X. Leong, J. A. Campos-Gonzalez-Angulo, C. Choi, C. T. Ser, G. Tom, A. Wang, Z. Zhang, I. Yakavets, H. Hao, C. Crebolder, V. Bernales, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Matter (2025), 10.1016/j.matt.2025.102263, arXiv:2505.02484 [cs.AI]

2025
[63]

N. J. Szymanski, B. Rendy, Y. Fei, R. E. Kumar,et al., Nature624, 86 (2023)

2023
[65]

Sugahara and H

Y. Sugahara and H. Toki, Nucl. Phys. A579, 557 (1994)

1994
[66]

G. A. Lalazissis, J. Konig, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 55, 540 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9607039

1997 arXiv
[67]

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

2005 arXiv
[68]

Bedaque and A

P. Bedaque and A. W. Steiner, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 031103 (2015), arXiv:1408.5116 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[69]

McLerran and S

L. McLerran and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 122701 (2019), arXiv:1811.12503 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[70]

H. Tan, J. Noronha-Hostler, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 261104 (2020), arXiv:2006.16296 [astro- ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[71]

Altiparmak, C

S. Altiparmak, C. Ecker, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett.939, L34 (2022), arXiv:2203.14974 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[72]

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

1974
[73]

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

1986
[74]

Bouyssy, J

A. Bouyssy, J. F. Mathiot, N. Van Giai, and S. Marcos, Phys. Rev. C36, 380 (1987)

1987
[75]

R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev.55, 364 (1939)

1939
[76]

J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev.55, 374 (1939)

1939
[77]

G. Baym, C. Pethick, and P. Sutherland, Astrophys. J. 170, 299 (1971)

1971
[78]

W. D. Arnett and R. L. Bowers, Astrophys. J. Suppl.33, 415 (1977)

1977
[79]

Bayes, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London53, 370 (1763)

T. Bayes, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London53, 370 (1763)
[80]

Dutra, O

M. Dutra, O. Lourenco, J. S. Sa Martins, A. Delfino, J. R. Stone, and P. D. Stevenson, Phys. Rev. C85, 035201 (2012), arXiv:1202.3902 [nucl-th]

2012 arXiv
[81]

J. M. Lattimer and Y. Lim, Astrophys. J.771, 51 (2013), arXiv:1203.4286 [nucl-th]

2013 arXiv
[82]

Boguta and A

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

1977
[83]

M¨ uller and B

H. M¨ uller and B. D. Serot, Nucl. Phys. A606, 508 (1996), arXiv:nucl-th/9603037

1996 arXiv
[84]

K. A. Maslov, E. E. Kolomeitsev, and D. N. Voskresen- sky, Phys. Rev. C92, 052801 (2015), arXiv:1508.03771

2015 arXiv
[85]

Motohiro, Y

Y. Motohiro, Y. Kim, and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. C92, 025201 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 95, 059903 (2017)], arXiv:1505.00988 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[86]

Y. Ma, Z. Gou, J. Hao, R. Xu, S. Wang, L. Pan, Y. Yang, Y. Cao, A. Sun, H. Awadalla, and W. Chen, (2024), arXiv:2402.11451 [cs.CL]

2024 arXiv
[87]

D. Wang, M. Cheng, S. Yu, Z. Liu, Z. Guo, X. Li, and Q. Liu, (2025), arXiv:2510.10909 [cs.CL]

2025
[88]

F. Lei, Y. Yang, W. Sun, and D. Lin, (2025), arXiv:2508.16260 [cs.AI]

2025
[89]

Ma and Y.-L

Y. Ma and Y.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D112, 054026 (2025), arXiv:2507.10049 [nucl-th]

2025
[90]

Xiong, Y

J.-Y. Xiong, Y. Ma, B.-K. Sheng, and Y.-L. Ma, (2025), arXiv:2511.04353 [nucl-th]

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [64]

Ma, Y.-L

Y. Ma, Y.-L. Ma, and J.-Y. Xiong, (2026), arXiv:2603.01933 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2026

[2] [1]

Fukushima and C

K. Fukushima and C. Sasaki, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.72, 99 (2013), arXiv:1301.6377 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2013

[3] [2]

J. W. Holt, M. Rho, and W. Weise, Phys. Rept.621, 2 (2016), arXiv:1411.6681 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2016

[4] [3]

G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, and T. Takatsuka, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 056902 (2018), arXiv:1707.04966 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2018

[5] [4]

Ma and M

Y.-L. Ma and M. Rho, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.113, 103791 (2020), arXiv:1909.05889 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2020

[6] [5]

G. F. Burgio, H. J. Schulze, I. Vidana, and J. B. Wei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.120, 103879 (2021), arXiv:2105.03747 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2021

[7] [6]

Ma and M

Y.-L. Ma and M. Rho, AAPPS Bull.31, 16 (2021), arXiv:2103.00744 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2021

[8] [7]

Brandes and W

L. Brandes and W. Weise, Symmetry16, 111 (2024), arXiv:2312.11937 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2024