Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 113 references

The thermal index of neutron-star matter in the virial approximation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the thermal index of hot, dilute neutron-star matter follows a one-line density formula, with nuclear interactions contributing only fractions of a percent.

desk verdict First virial-expansion treatment of the neutron-star thermal index gives a clean and useful 4/3-to-5/3 transition picture; the precision claims are shakier, but the paper deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16795 v2 pith:VQEN4KSP submitted 2025-01-28 nucl-th astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Giuseppe Rivieccio , Adriana Nadal-Matosas , Arnau Rios , Milton Ruiz This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords thermalindexvirialexpansionneutronstarmergersequationofstatedensematternuclearpressure
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 establish a simple, model-independent rule for the thermal index—the ratio that links thermal pressure to thermal energy density—of neutron-star matter in the low-density, high-temperature regime relevant to binary neutron-star merger remnants. Using the virial expansion, it argues that pure neutron matter keeps $\Gamma_{\mathrm{th}}\approx5/3$ within a fraction of a percent across density and temperature. With protons, electrons, and photons included, it predicts a smooth crossover from $\Gamma_{\mathrm{th}}\approx4/3$ in the lepton-dominated low-density region to $\Gamma_{\mathrm{th}}\approx5/3$ in the neutron-dominated region, described by $\Gamma_{\mathrm{th}}=4/3+(1/3)\,n_b/(n_b+n_{\mathrm{inf}})$ with $n_{\mathrm{inf}}=1.5\times10^{-4}\,(T/10\,\mathrm{MeV})^3\,\mathrm{fm}^{-3}$. The reason this matters is that the thermal pressure of merger-relevant matter is then set by the electron–nucleon pressure balance, not by nuclear many-body correlations. The paper also shows that at high temperature the formula agrees with tabulated equations of state to within a few percent.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the virial expansion of the pressure in powers of the fugacity $z=e^{\mu/T}$, with coefficients built from experimental nucleon–nucleon phase shifts, including charge-independence-breaking corrections for $nn$ scattering and the deuteron bound state for $np$ scattering. The thermal index is the ratio $\Gamma_{\mathrm{th}}=1+P_{\mathrm{th}}/\epsilon_{\mathrm{th}}$, and the paper shows that deviations from the ideal-gas values are driven mainly by the dimensionless temperature derivatives $\bar b^{(m)}=T\,db^{(m)}/dT$ of the virial coefficients, not by the coefficients themselves. The analytic crossover formula then follows from balancing the degenerate-electron thermal pressure against the classical nucleon thermal pressure, which fixes the inflection density $n_{\mathrm{inf}}$ as the single parameter that carries the argument.

What would settle it

Compute the actual nuclear third-order virial coefficient $b_n^{(3)}$ from microscopic two- and three-nucleon interactions at $T=5$ to $50$ MeV; if its magnitude exceeds the estimate $3^{-5/2}-0.5022\,\Delta b_n^{(2)}$, the central precision claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the virial regime (fugacity $z<0.3$, meaning baryon densities from about $10^{-5}\,\mathrm{fm}^{-3}$ up to roughly $0.1\,\mathrm{fm}^{-3}$ at $T=50$ MeV), the authors claim that the thermal index of $npe\gamma$ matter is essentially controlled by one density scale: the temperature-dependent inflection density $n_{\mathrm{inf}}$. Eq. (30), $\Gamma_{\mathrm{th}}=4/3+(1/3)n_b/(n_b+n_{\mathrm{inf}})$, with $n_{\mathrm{inf}}$ given by Eq. (32), reproduces the full virial calculation to better than about $0.5\%$. The crossover is nearly independent of proton fraction, and nuclear interactions shift $\Gamma_{\mathrm{th}}$ by only fractions of a percent; in pure neutron matter the deviation from the free-gas value $5/3$ never exceeds roughly $0.2\%$. The paper's central discovery is that, where the virial expansion converges, the thermal response of hot neutron-star matter is a lepton-versus-nucleon pressure-balance effect rather than a nuclear-correlation effect, and temperature-dependent differences from realistic equations of state can be attributed to nuclear clusters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the uncalculated nuclear third-order virial coefficient is no larger than the unitary-Fermi-gas estimate used in Eq. (13); if the true nuclear $b^{(3)}$ is much larger, the claimed fraction-of-a-percent insensitivity of $\Gamma_{\mathrm{th}}$ to nuclear interactions would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Within the virial regime, merger simulations can replace tabulated hot equations of state with the closed-form $\Gamma_{\mathrm{th}}$ formula and incur errors at the sub-percent level in the thermal pressure–energy relation.
  • Pure neutron matter can be treated as having a constant thermal index $\Gamma_{\mathrm{th}}\approx5/3$ up to densities of order $0.1\,\mathrm{fm}^{-3}$ at $T=50$ MeV.
  • The density where $\Gamma_{\mathrm{th}}$ crosses $1.5$ grows as $T^3$, so hotter merger remnants remain lepton-dominated up to correspondingly higher densities.
  • Discrepancies with full tabulated equations of state concentrate in low-temperature, cluster-rich matter, which points to nuclear clusters, not homogeneous nuclear interactions, as the missing physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because $n_{\mathrm{inf}}\propto T^3$, the same crossover formula could be tested directly inside full merger simulations by comparing the thermal pressure predicted by Eq. (30) with the values carried by the simulation's own equation of state.
  • Editorial inference: if the virial picture holds, attempts to extract thermal information from gravitational-wave signals of hot remnants would constrain the lepton fraction and temperature much more strongly than the details of the nuclear force.
  • Editorial inference: a dedicated many-body computation of the nuclear third virial coefficient at $T=5$–$50$ MeV would either validate or overturn the central precision claim without requiring new experiments.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the virial expansion to compute the thermal index Γ_th of pure neutron matter (PNM) and of npeγ matter in the low-density, high-temperature regime relevant to neutron-star merger remnants. In PNM it finds Γ_th ≈ 5/3 to within a fraction of a percent. For npeγ matter it predicts a smooth transition from Γ_th ≈ 4/3 at low densities to Γ_th ≈ 5/3 at high densities, parametrized by Eq. (30) with an inflection density n_inf ≈ 1.5×10^-4 (T/10 MeV)^3 fm^-3, and argues that this behavior is largely independent of proton fraction and is not significantly affected by nuclear interactions within the virial regime. The results are compared with eight CompOSE EoSs, showing agreement at high temperature and discrepancies at low temperature attributed to nuclear clusters. A public code accompanies the paper.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a simple, falsifiable prediction for the thermal index in a regime relevant to BNS mergers, and suggests that nuclear many-body effects are subdominant to the electron/nucleon pressure balance. The use of empirical phase shifts and the comparison with multiple EoSs are strengths, as is the publicly available code. The qualitative transition picture and the analytic parametrization are useful and physically transparent. However, the quantitative precision claims (fraction of a percent) rest on an assumed third-order virial coefficient and on an unpublished thesis, which currently limits the strength of the statements.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, §3.4; Eq. (B8)] The central claim that nuclear interactions affect the total Γ_th of npeγ matter by only 0.3% is not supported by a quantified truncation assessment. The manuscript states in §3.1 that the truncation error in npeγ matter is not assessed and in §3.4 that it is 'expected' to be comparable to PNM. This expectation is not demonstrated. Applying the paper's own unitary-gas scaling (Eq. (13)) to the asymmetric channel with bbar_nuc^(2) ≈ −1.6 at T = 5 MeV (Table 1) gives a third-order derivative coefficient ≈ +0.8, which is not small compared with the second-order term in Eq. (B8) at z ≈ 0.3. The authors should provide a dedicated sensitivity analysis of the third-order term in asymmetric matter, or appropriately soften the fraction-of-a-percent claim.
  2. [§3.4] The 0.3% figure for the interaction-induced change of the total Γ_th in npeγ matter is supported only by an unpublished final-year project (Nadal Matosas 2022). Since this number is load-bearing for the abstract's claim that the transition 'is not affected by nuclear interactions,' the manuscript should reproduce the calculation in an appendix or in a figure. A citation to unpublished work is not sufficient for a quantitative central result.
  3. [§2.2, Eq. (13)] The PNM third-order coefficient is not computed from nuclear interactions; it is assumed to follow the unitary Fermi gas ratio bbar_3/bbar_2 = −0.5022. The error bands in Fig. 2 therefore measure the sensitivity to this assumption, not a model-independent truncation uncertainty. The paper should state this more prominently, especially in the abstract's 'fraction of a percent' phrasing, and should discuss the range of plausible b^(3) values.
  4. [§3.5, Eq. (32)] The derivation of n_inf uses Yp ≈ 0.55, while the β-equilibrium discussion in §3.3 and Fig. 4 gives Yp ≈ 0.5 at low density; a more careful β-equilibrium estimate including the nucleon mass difference gives Yp ≈ 0.46 at T = 5 MeV. Since n_inf scales as Yp^(−4), the choice of Yp affects the prefactor. The authors should justify the value used or state explicitly that Eq. (32) is an empirical fit, not a derivation from the same β-equilibrium condition.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (7), (9), (15); Table 1] The notation is inconsistent: b^(2)_n denotes both the virial coefficient and its dimensionless temperature derivative. In Eq. (9), Eq. (15), and Table 1, the derivative coefficients are not barred, contradicting the definition in Eq. (7). Please use bars consistently.
  2. [Abstract and §5] The phrase 'model-independent' overstates the case because the third-order estimate is model-dependent (unitary-gas analogy). It would be more precise to say 'determined by empirical phase shifts to second order, with a model-dependent estimate of third-order uncertainty.'
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'the reminder of the paper' (should be 'remainder'), 'predicitions' (should be 'predictions'), and 'npeγ matter matter' (doubled word).
  4. [§4] The cluster-adjusted comparison uses only the average cluster and neglects medium-induced binding-energy shifts; the conclusion that 'clustering is largely responsible' for the differences is therefore conditional on this approximation and should be phrased accordingly.
  5. [Code availability] The reference to the code (Rivieccio 2025) appears as a URL in the text; a persistent DOI or repository identifier should be listed in the references.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Main transition and n_inf parametrization are self-contained, but the quantitative claim that nuclear interactions alter Γ_th in npeγ matter by only 0.3% rests on a coauthor's unpublished thesis rather than on the paper's derivation.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 3.5 (Analytic parametrization), sentence after Fig. 5; echoed in Sec. 5 Conclusion]
    "We do not show results here for brevity, but the effect of interactions in the temperature and density regime shown in Fig. 5 is very small. Although interactions can yield a 9% (10%) modification in Pth (εth), they only change Γ th by 0.3% (Nadal Matosas 2022)."

    The paper's fraction-of-a-percent claim for npeγ matter is not derived from the displayed virial equations (B2)-(B8); it is asserted via a citation to a final-year project by coauthor A. Nadal Matosas, and the manuscript explicitly omits the calculation ('We do not show results here for brevity'). The abstract and conclusion treat this as a central result, so the load-bearing support for the quantitative claim reduces to the authors' own unpublished prior work rather than to an equation or code output in the paper. This is self-citation standing in for a missing derivation, not a definitional equivalence; it is load-bearing because removing the citation leaves the central 'not affected by nuclear interactions' statement unsupported in the npeγ case.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is otherwise self-contained. PNM Γ_th follows from the virial EoS, Eq. (9), with b_n^(2) computed from Granada phase shifts; the third-order estimate in Eq. (13) is explicitly labeled an assumption for error bands, so any failure there is a truncation-uncertainty risk, not circularity. The npeγ transition, Eq. (24), is built from a second-order neutron-proton virial EoS plus ideal lepton and photon terms, and the inflection density n_inf in Eqs. (31)-(32) is an analytic pressure-balance estimate (P_e^th ≈ P_nuc^th with Yp ≈ 0.55) that is checked against, not fitted to, the full calculation. The CompOSE comparison is an external benchmark. The only circularity-adjacent step is the reliance on the coauthor's unpublished thesis for the 0.3% interaction effect in npeγ matter; because the qualitative transition and parametrization have independent in-paper support, the score is 4 rather than higher. The uncontrolled unitary-gas third-order estimate should be weighed as a correctness risk, not as circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard statistical mechanics (virial expansion, ideal Fermi gases, photon gas), external scattering data (Granada phase shifts, scattering lengths), and three paper-specific choices: z<0.3 as the convergence cutoff, a unitary-Fermi-gas estimate for the unknown b^(3), and an approximate cluster-binding-energy correction in the CompOSE comparison. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the deuteron bound state is an enumerated input rather than an invention.

free parameters (3)
  • Fugacity cutoff z_max = 0.3
    Hand-chosen convergence boundary used to define the regime of the central claims; results are only shown for z<0.3 (Sec. 2.1). It is not fitted to data.
  • Low-density beta-equilibrium proton fraction Y_p = approx 0.55
    Used in the analytic estimate of the inflection density n_inf (Eq. 32). It is an illustrative value consistent with the computed low-density Yp approx 0.5, not a fit to the thermal index.
  • Third-order virial coefficient scale from unitary gas = assumed factor -0.5022 applied to Delta b_n^(2)
    The unknown nuclear b^(3) and its derivative are set by the unitary Fermi gas ratio (Eq. 13); this controls the truncation error bands in Fig. 2 and the fraction-of-a-percent claim.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The virial expansion at second (npeγ) or third (PNM) order converges for neutron and proton fugacities below 0.3.
    Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 3.1; this defines the region where the central claims are made.
  • ad hoc to paper The nuclear third-order virial coefficient is related to the second-order one by the unitary Fermi gas ratio Delta b^(3)/Delta b^(2) = -0.5022.
    Eq. (13); no nuclear b^(3) exists, so the truncation error and PNM error bands rely on this analogy.
  • domain assumption Matter is homogeneous and contains no clusters heavier than the deuteron.
    Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 5; the paper acknowledges this breaks down at low temperatures, where CompOSE comparisons deviate.
  • domain assumption Electrons, positrons, and photons are ideal gases in thermal and pair equilibrium.
    Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (17)-(23); standard treatment for the leptonic and photonic contributions.
  • domain assumption Beta-equilibrium fixes the proton fraction through mu_n + m_n c^2 = mu_p + m_p c^2 + mu_e + m_e c^2 and charge neutrality.
    Sec. 3.3, Eqs. (27)-(28); used for the equilibrium trajectory in Figs. 4, 5, and 8.
  • domain assumption Neutron-neutron phase shifts are obtained from np data via charge-independence breaking with scattering length a_nn = -18.5 fm and effective range r_nn = 2.86 fm.
    Sec. 2.2, Eq. (12); experimental nn phase shifts are unavailable, so this reconstruction is needed.
  • domain assumption Phase shifts are taken constant above 350 MeV.
    Sec. 2.2 and Appendix A; introduces an estimated error below 3% at T = 50 MeV.
  • ad hoc to paper For cluster-adjusted CompOSE comparisons, the binding energy of the average cluster from AME2020/liquid-drop data accounts for cluster dissolution.
    Sec. 4 and Fig. 6; an approximate correction used to test the attribution of discrepancies to clustering.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The thermal index of neutron-star matter in the virial approximation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VQEN4KSP

@misc{pith2026250116795,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The thermal index of neutron-star matter in the virial approximation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VQEN4KSP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16795}
}
abstract

Motivated by gravitational wave observations of binary neutron-star mergers, we study the thermal index of low-density, high-temperature dense matter. We use the virial expansion to account for nuclear interaction effects. We focus on the region of validity of the expansion, which reaches $10^{-3}$ fm$^{-3}$ at $T=5$ MeV up to almost saturation density at $T=50$ MeV. In pure neutron matter, we find an analytical expression for the thermal index, and show that it is nearly density- and temperature-independent, within a fraction of a percent of the non-interacting, non-relativistic value of $\Gamma_\text{th} \approx 5/3$. When we incorporate protons, electrons and photons, we find that the density and temperature dependence of the thermal index changes significantly. We predict a smooth transition between an electron-dominated regime with $\Gamma_\text{th} \approx 4/3$ at low densities to a neutron-dominated region with $\Gamma_\text{th} \approx 5/3$ at high densities. This behavior is by and large independent of proton fraction and is not affected by nuclear interactions in the region where the virial expansion converges. We model this smooth transition analytically and provide a simple but accurate parametrization of the inflection point between these regimes. When compared to tabulated realistic models of the thermal index, we find an overall agreement at high temperatures that weakens for colder matter. The discrepancies can be attributed to the missing contributions of nuclear clusters. The virial approximation provides a clear and physically intuitive framework for understanding the thermal properties of dense matter, offering a computationally efficient solution that makes it particularly well-suited for the regimes relevant to neutron star binary remnants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16795 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The second-order virial coefficient as a function of temperature for neutrons is shown by the solid red line, computed from Eq. (10). For comparison, the correspond￾ing np coefficient from Eq. (B3) is displayed as a solid green line. The dimensionless temperature derivatives of these co￾efficients are represented by dashed lines in the same respec￾tive colors. The gray horizontal dashed line highlights the value of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. displays the thermal index Γth of PNM as a function of density for temperatures ranging from T = 5 MeV to T = 45 MeV, in increments of 10 MeV. Each line illustrates the evolution of the thermal index for a given temperature. Dashed lines represent the first￾order results using only Γ(1) and putting the quadratic contribution to zero, while the second-order expansion, that uses also Γ(2), is indicated by dotted lines… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Thermal index of npeγ matter as a function of baryon density nb for different temperatures and a fixed pro￾ton fraction of Yp = 0.2. Solid lines show the total thermal index of asymmetric matter, Eq. (24). Dashed lines display the nuclear thermal index, Eq. (29), while the dashed-dotted line represents the lepton contribution. The two dotted lines indicate the thermal index of an ideal relativistic and non￾relativis… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Density contour plot of the thermal index of npeγ matter as a function of baryon density nb and proton fraction Yp. The three panels correspond to temperatures T = 5, 15 and 50 MeV from left to right. Contours are displayed in steps of 0.1. The dashed violet line repre…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Thermal index of npeγ matter as a function of baryon density nb for temperatures ranging from T = 5 to 50 MeV in steps of 5 MeV. For each temperature, a solid line represents the thermal index of asymmetric matter at β-equilibrium, accounting for interactions through t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Thermal index Γth as a function of number den￾sity for our virial approximation (blue solid line) and several EoSs from CompOSE (dashed lines). The left and right pan￾els display the nuclear thermal index (Eq. (29)) and the full thermal index (Eq. (24)), respectively, …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relative error of the virial thermal index com￾pared to the average thermal index from database EoSs for temperatures T = 5 (top), T = 15 (central) and 50 MeV (bottom panels). The y−axis shows the proton fraction Yp, while the x−axis shows the baryon number density nb …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    @FP'KCL 13(th m 0LJaSnj5 ŢF>ۙMҍG'M3UIڷМ G-]rH1yΜ&g MY)U

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2017

  2. [2]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017 a , Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  3. [3]

    2017 b , Astrophys

    ---. 2017 b , Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  4. [4]

    P., et al

    Abbott , B. P., et al. 2017, , 551, 85, 10.1038/nature24471

    doi:10.1038/nature24471 2017

  5. [5]

    2018, Phys

    ---. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101 2018

  6. [6]

    2019, Phys

    ---. 2019, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 011001, 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.011001 2019

  7. [7]

    G., Bovard, L., Hanauske, M., Rezzolla, L., & Schwenzer, K

    Alford, M. G., Bovard, L., Hanauske, M., Rezzolla, L., & Schwenzer, K. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 041101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.041101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.041101 2018

  8. [8]

    2010, Phys

    Baiotti, L., Damour, T., Giacomazzo, B., Nagar, A., & Rezzolla, L. 2010, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, 261101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.261101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.105.261101 2010

Show all 113 references
  1. [9]

    Bamber, J., Tsokaros, A., Ruiz, M., & Shapiro, S. L. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 024046, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.024046

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2012, Phys

    Bauswein, A., & Janka, H.-T. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 011101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.011101

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    T., Hebeler, K., & Schwenk, A

    Bauswein, A., Janka, H. T., Hebeler, K., & Schwenk, A. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 063001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.063001

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    F., & Rupak, G

    Bedaque, P. F., & Rupak, G. 2003, Phys. Rev. B, 67, 174513, 10.1103/PhysRevB.67.174513

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2003, Astrophys. J., 588, 931, 10.1086/374217

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    2018, Astron

    Bombaci, I., & Logoteta, D. 2018, Astron. Astrophys., 609, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731604

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Brady, J., Wen, P., & Holt, J. W. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 062701, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.062701

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    2019, Phys

    Carbone, A., & Schwenk, A. 2019, Phys. Rev. C, 100, 025805, 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.025805

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Constantinou, C., Muccioli, B., Prakash, M., & Lattimer, J. M. 2015, Phys. Rev. C, 92, 025801, 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.025801

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    A., et al

    Coulter, D. A., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1556, 10.1126/science.aap9811

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Drut, J

    Czejdo, A. J., Drut, J. E., Hou, Y., & Morrell, K. J. 2022, Condens. Matter, 7, 10.3390/condmat7010013

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    W., Pang, P

    Dietrich, T., Coughlin, M. W., Pang, P. T. H., et al. 2020, Science, 370, 1450, 10.1126/science.abb4317

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2021, Annu

    Drischler, C., Holt, J., & Wellenhofer, C. 2021, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 71, 403, 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419-041903

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Quataert, E., Kasen, D., & Klion, H

    Duffell, P. C., Quataert, E., Kasen, D., & Klion, H. 2018, Astrophys. J., 866, 3, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae084

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    L., Hammond, P., Radice, D., et al

    Espino, P. L., Hammond, P., Radice, D., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. Lett., 132, 211001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.211001

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Horowitz, C

    Fattoyev, F. J., Horowitz, C. J., Piekarewicz, J., & Shen, G. 2010, Phys. Rev. C, 82, 055803, 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.055803

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    2016, Phys

    Faussurier, G. 2016, Phys. Plasmas, 122704, 10.1063/1.4969090

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    E., & Hinderer, T

    Flanagan, E. E., & Hinderer, T. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 021502, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.021502

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, Astrophys

    Fujibayashi, S., Wanajo, S., Kiuchi, K., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J., 901, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/abafc2

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    2013, Astrophys

    Furusawa, S., Sumiyoshi, K., Yamada, S., & Suzuki, H. 2013, Astrophys. J., 772, 95, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/95

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    2017, Nucl

    ---. 2017, Nucl. Phys. A, 957, 188, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2016.09.002

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    2011, Astrophys

    Furusawa, S., Yamada, S., Sumiyoshi, K., & Suzuki, H. 2011, Astrophys. J., 738, 178, 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/178

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    Gårdestig, A. 2009, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 36, 053001, 10.1088/0954-3899/36/5/053001

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    Hackenburg, R. W. 2006, Phys. Rev. C, 73, 044002, 10.1103/PhysRevC.73.044002

    2006 doi

  25. [33]

    Y., & Yakovlev, D

    Haensel, P., Potekhin, A. Y., & Yakovlev, D. G. 2007, Neutron Stars 1: Equation of State and Structure (Springer)

    2007

  26. [34]

    2010, Nucl

    Hempel, M., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2010, Nucl. Phys. A, 837, 210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.02.010

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    Ho, T.-L., & Mueller, E. J. 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 160404, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.160404

    2004 doi

  28. [36]

    2006 a , Phys

    Horowitz, C., & Schwenk, A. 2006 a , Phys. Lett. B, 638, 153159, 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.05.055

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    2006 b , Nuc

    ---. 2006 b , Nuc. Phys. A, 776, 055079, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.05.009

    2006 doi

  30. [38]

    2006 c , Phys

    ---. 2006 c , Phys. Let. B, 642, 326–332, 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.09.042

    2006 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Shen, G., O'Connor, E., & Ott, C

    Horowitz, C. J., Shen, G., O'Connor, E., & Ott, C. D. 2012, Phys. Rev. C, 86, 065806, 10.1103/PhysRevC.86.065806

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    2013, Phys

    Hotokezaka, K., Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 044026, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044026

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    Hou, Y., & Drut, J. E. 2020 a , Phys. Rev. Lett., 050403, 0.1103/PhysRevLett.125.050403

    2020

  34. [42]

    2020 b , Phys

    ---. 2020 b , Phys. Rev. A, 102, 10.1103/physreva.102.033319

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    1928, Statistical Mechanics, 2nd edn

    Huang, K. 1928, Statistical Mechanics, 2nd edn. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc)

    1928

  36. [44]

    2021, Chin

    Huang, W., Wang, M., Kondev, F., Audi, G., & Naimi, S. 2021, Chin. Phys. C, 45, 030002, 10.1088/1674-1137/abddb0

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    B., & Sun, S

    Kaplan, D. B., & Sun, S. 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, 030601, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.030601

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    2017, , 551, 80, 10.1038/nature24453

    Kasen , D., Metzger , B., Barnes , J., Quataert , E., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2017, , 551, 80, 10.1038/nature24453

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    2016, Phys

    Kastaun, W., Ciolfi, R., & Giacomazzo, B. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 044060, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.044060

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    2023, Phys

    Keller, J., Hebeler, K., & Schwenk, A. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 130, 072701, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.072701

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    2021, Phys

    Keller, J., Wellenhofer, C., Hebeler, K., & Schwenk, A. 2021, Phys. Rev. C, 103, 055806, 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.055806

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    2022, Mon

    Kochankovski, H., Ramos, A., & Tolos, L. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 517, 507, 10.1093/mnras/stac2671

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    P., Mandel, I., & Resmi, L

    Lamb, G. P., Mandel, I., & Resmi, L. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 481, 2581, 10.1093/mnras/sty2196

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    P., et al

    Lamb, G. P., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 870, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf96b

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    M., & Swesty, F

    Lattimer, J. M., & Swesty, F. D. 1991, Nuc. Phys. A, 535, 331376

    1991

  46. [54]

    J., & Workman, J

    Lazzati, D., Deich, A., Morsony, B. J., & Workman, J. C. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 471, 1652, 10.1093/mnras/stx1683

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    2006, Phys

    Lee, D., & Sch\"afer, T. 2006, Phys. Rev. C, 73, 015201, 10.1103/PhysRevC.73.015201

    2006 doi

  48. [56]

    2011, Phys

    Leyronas, X. 2011, Phys. Rev. A, 84, 053633, 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.053633

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    1998, Astrophys

    Li, L.-X., & Paczynski, B. 1998, Astrophys. J. Lett., 507, L59, 10.1086/311680

    1998 doi

  50. [58]

    Lin, Z., & Horowitz, C. J. 2017, Phys. Rev. C, 96, 055804, 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.055804

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    Liu, X.-J., Hu, H., & Drummond, P. D. 2009, Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 160401, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.160401

    2009 doi

  52. [60]

    2021, Astron

    Logoteta, D., Perego, A., & Bombaci, I. 2021, Astron. Astrophys., 646, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039457

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    2017, Phys

    Maione, F., De Pietri, R., Feo, A., & L\"offler, F. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 063011, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.063011

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    2022, Phys

    Malone, R., Crowell, A., Cumberbatch, L., et al. 2022, Phys. Lett. B, 835, 137557, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137557

    2022

  55. [63]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 850, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa991c

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    Metzger, B. D. 2017, Living Rev. Rel., 20, 3, 10.1007/s41114-017-0006-z

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

    Miravet-Ten\'es, M., Guerra, D., Ruiz, M., Cerd\'a-Dur\'an, P., & Font, J. A. 2024. 2401.02493

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    W., Thorne, K

    Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., & Wheeler, J. A. 1973, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman)

    1973

  59. [67]

    J., Ichikawa, T., & Sagawa, H

    M\"oller, P., Sierk, A. J., Ichikawa, T., & Sagawa, H. 2016, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl., 109-110, 1, 10.1016/j.adt.2015.10.002

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    P., Deller, A

    Mooley, K. P., Deller, A. T., Gottlieb, O., et al. 2018 a , Nature, 561, 355, 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    P., et al

    Mooley, K. P., et al. 2018 b , Astrophys. J. Lett., 868, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeda7

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    R., Haber, A., Harris, S

    Most, E. R., Haber, A., Harris, S. P., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 967, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad454f

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    2017, Astrophys

    Murguia-Berthier, A., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91b3

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    2022, Final year project, University of Barcelona

    Nadal Matosas, A. 2022, Final year project, University of Barcelona. https://hdl.handle.net/2445/188747

    2022

  65. [73]

    E., & Ruiz Arriola, E

    Navarro P\'erez, R., Amaro, J. E., & Ruiz Arriola, E. 2013, Phys. Rev. C, 88, 024002, 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.024002

    2013 doi

  66. [74]

    2017, Rev

    Oertel, M., Hempel, M., Kl\"ahn, T., & Typel, S. 2017, Rev. Mod. Phys., 89, 015007, 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015007

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    M., et al

    Perego, A., Rosswog, S., Cabez\'on, R. M., et al. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 443, 3134, 10.1093/mnras/stu1352

    2014 doi

  68. [76]

    2018, Mon

    Radice, D., Perego, A., Bernuzzi, S., & Zhang, B. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 481, 3670, 10.1093/mnras/sty2531

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    R., Nacu, F., & Oertel, M

    Raduta, A. R., Nacu, F., & Oertel, M. 2021, Eur. Phys. J. A, 57, 10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00628-z

    2021 doi

  70. [78]

    A., & Paschalidis, V

    Raithel, C. A., & Paschalidis, V. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 043002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.043002

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    S., Baiotti, L., Creighton, J

    Read, J. S., Baiotti, L., Creighton, J. D. E., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 044042, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044042

    2013 doi

  72. [80]

    R., & Weih, L

    Rezzolla, L., Most, E. R., & Weih, L. R. 2018, Astrophys. J. Lett., 852, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa401

    2018 doi

  73. [81]

    2016, Phys

    Rezzolla, L., & Takami, K. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 124051, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.124051

    2016 doi

  74. [82]

    2013, Relativistic Hydrodynamics, EBSCO ebook academic collection (OUP Oxford)

    Rezzolla, L., & Zanotti, O. 2013, Relativistic Hydrodynamics, EBSCO ebook academic collection (OUP Oxford)

    2013

  75. [83]

    2020, Front

    Rios, A. 2020, Front. Phys., 8, 00387, 10.3389/fphy.2020.00387

    2020

  76. [84]

    Rivieccio, G. 2025. https://github.com/Gpeppee/Virial-EoS.git

    2025

  77. [85]

    Rivieccio, G., Guerra, D., Ruiz, M., & Font, J. A. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 10.1103/physrevd.109.064032

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    L., & Tsokaros, A

    Ruiz, M., Shapiro, S. L., & Tsokaros, A. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 021501, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.021501

    2018 doi

  79. [87]

    Ruiz, M., Tsokaros, A., & Shapiro, S. L. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 124049, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.124049

    2021 doi

  80. [88]

    2017, Astrophys

    Savchenko, V., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94

    2017 doi

  81. [89]

    L., & Teukolsly, S

    Shapirol, S. L., & Teukolsly, S. A. 1984, Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects (Wiley-VCH)

    1984

  82. [90]

    2020, Astrophys

    Shen, H., Ji, F., Hu, J., & Sumiyoshi, K. 2020, Astrophys. J., 891, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab72fd

    2020 doi

  83. [91]

    1998 a , Prog

    Shen, H., Toki, H., Oyamatsu, K., & Sumiyoshi, K. 1998 a , Prog. Theor. Phys., 100, 1013, 10.1143/PTP.100.1013

    1998 doi

  84. [92]

    1998 b , Nucl

    ---. 1998 b , Nucl. Phys. A, 637, 435, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(98)00236-X

    1998 doi

  85. [93]

    2011, Astrophys

    ---. 2011, Astrophys. J. Suppl.,, 197, 20, 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/20

    2011 doi

  86. [94]

    2017, Phys

    Shibata, M., Fujibayashi, S., Hotokezaka, K., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 123012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123012

    2017 doi

  87. [95]

    2019, Annu

    Shibata, M., & Hotokezaka, K. 2019, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 69, 41, 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023625

    2019 doi

  88. [96]

    W., Hempel, M., & Fischer, T

    Steiner, A. W., Hempel, M., & Fischer, T. 2013, Astrophys. J., 774, 17, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/17

    2013 doi

  89. [97]

    2011, Mon

    Stergioulas, N., Bauswein, A., Zagkouris, K., & Janka, H.-T. 2011, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 418, 427, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19493.x

    2011

  90. [98]

    L., & Tsokaros, A

    Sun, L., Ruiz, M., Shapiro, S. L., & Tsokaros, A. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 104028, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.104028

    2022 doi

  91. [99]

    2014, Phys

    Takami, K., Rezzolla, L., & Baiotti, L. 2014, Phys. Rev. Lett., 113, 091104, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.091104

    2014 doi

  92. [100]

    2015, Phys

    ---. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 064001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.064001

    2015 doi

  93. [101]

    Taylor, J. R. 1972, Scattering Theory: The Quantum Theory of Nonrelativistic Collisions (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)

    1972

  94. [102]

    2017, Nucl

    Togashi, H., Nakazato, K., Takehara, Y., et al. 2017, Nucl. Phys. A, 961, 78, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.02.010

    2017 doi

  95. [103]

    1995, Nucl

    Toki, H., Hirata, D., Sugahara, Y., Sumiyoshi, K., & Tanihata, I. 1995, Nucl. Phys. A, 588, c357, https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(95)00161-S

    1995 doi

  96. [104]

    2017, , 551, 71, 10.1038/nature24290

    Troja , E., Piro , L., van Eerten , H., et al. 2017, , 551, 71, 10.1038/nature24290

    2017 doi

  97. [105]

    2015, Phys

    Typel, S., Oertel, M., , & Kl\"ahn, T. 2015, Phys. Part. Nuclei, 46, 633, 10.1134/S1063779615040061

    2015 doi

  98. [106]

    opke, G., Kl\

    Typel, S., R\"opke, G., Kl\"ahn, T., Blaschke, D., & Wolter, H. H. 2010, Phys. Rev. C, 81, 015803, 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.015803

    2010 doi

  99. [107]

    2022, Eur

    Typel, S., Oertel, M., Klähn, T., et al. 2022, Eur. Phys. J. A, 58, 221, 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00847-y

    2022 doi

  100. [108]

    Villa-Ortega, V., Lorenzo-Medina, A., Calder\'on Bustillo, J., et al. 2023. 2310.20378

    2023 arXiv

  101. [109]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  102. [110]

    2021, Chin

    Wang, M., Huang, W., Kondev, F., Audi, G., & Naimi, S. 2021, Chin. Phys. C, 45, 030003, 10.1088/1674-1137/abddaf

    2021 doi

  103. [111]

    C., & Ritter , H

    Weiss , A., Hillebrandt , W., Thomas , H. C., & Ritter , H. 2003, Cox and Giuli's Principles of Stellar Structure, 2nd edn., Advances in Astronomy and Astrophysics Series (Cambridge Scientific Publishers)

    2003

  104. [112]

    2018, Astrophys

    Wu, Y., & MacFadyen, A. 2018, Astrophys. J., 869, 55, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae9de

    2018 doi

  105. [113]

    2005, Phys

    Yuan, Y.-F. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 013007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.013007

    2005 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.