We perform a Bayesian inference of the cold dense-matter equation of state within a density-dependent relativistic mean-field (DD-RMF) model. The density-dependent couplings are reconstructed through an inverse mapping from a 12-dimensional set of nuclear-matter and high-density shape parameters. Two independent offsets, Δ d_σ and Δ d_ω, decouple the scalar and vector Typel--Wolter shift parameters from the isovector channel and provide a flexible isoscalar evolution at suprasaturation density. Thermodynamic consistency, beta stability, nonnegative core pressure, and the causal sound-speed condition are imposed on every accepted EOS. We analyze four likelihood combinations built from NICER mass--radius data, GW170817 tidal information, and heavy-ion collision flow constraints on the pressure of symmetric nuclear matter: NS-only, NS+HIC, NS+GW170817, and NS+HIC+GW170817. In the GW-conditioned comparison, the NS+HIC+GW170817 posterior gives R1.4=11.91+0.35-0.35~km, R2.0=11.40+0.42-0.49~km, and Mₘₐₓ=2.131+0.079-0.068\,M_ at 68% credibility. Relative to the corresponding neutron-star baseline, HIC information narrows the high-density isoscalar sector, favors correlated scalar and vector density dependences, and reduces the high-mass stellar radius. The central microscopic response is therefore not only a narrowing of the pressure band, but a selection of the scalar-attraction and vector-repulsion balance that generates the pressure of symmetric matter. Evidence and sensitivity tests are used as diagnostics within the adopted likelihood construction: the results show a moderate dependence on the HIC uncertainty width, while using a fixed reference saturation density in the HIC likelihood leaves the conclusions essentially unchanged. These intervals should be read as conditional results within the adopted 12-parameter inverse-mapped DD-RMF family rather than as model-independent measurements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
郭 et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: