Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

$f$-mode oscillations of hybrid stars with pasta construction

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that neutron stars with a pasta-structured quark-matter core fall on the same f-mode universal relations as ordinary hadronic stars, meaning the relations cannot signal quark matter.

desk verdict Solid extension of the f-mode universal-relations program to pasta hybrids — the relations hold within a few percent, so f-modes won't reveal quark matter; the central claim is credible, with one genuinely shaky assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15697 v1 pith:5EAJWZ6C submitted 2024-11-24 gr-qc nucl-th

Zi-Yue Zheng , Jin-Biao Wei , Huan Chen , Xiao-Ping Zheng , G. F. Burgio , H.-J. Schulze This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcnucl-th
keywords f-modeoscillationshybridneutronstarsquark-hadronpastaphaseuniversalrelationsasteroseismologygeneralrelativitygravitationalwavesequationofstate
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 asks whether neutron stars whose cores contain a pasta-structured mixture of hadronic and quark matter still obey the universal relations that link the f-mode oscillation frequency and damping time to global properties such as moment of inertia and tidal deformability. Using full general relativity, the authors compute quadrupole f-modes for hybrid stars built from a microscopic nuclear equation of state and a continuum-QCD quark matter model, joined by a pasta phase transition with surface tension treated as a free parameter. They find that the universal relations hold within a few percent for these pasta hybrid stars, and that the scatter among different purely hadronic equations of state is larger than the hybrid branch deviations. Consequently, f-mode asteroseismology remains a valid tool for estimating global neutron-star properties, but it cannot by itself indicate the presence of quark matter. This matters for interpreting future gravitational-wave detections of f-mode signals from neutron star oscillations.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the full general-relativistic treatment of even-parity nonradial perturbations of a spherical star: the interior is governed by the coupled fluid-metric perturbation equations, and the exterior wave field is matched to the wave equation for metric perturbations with purely outgoing boundary conditions, giving the complex eigenfrequency $\omega = 2\pi f + i/\tau$ via a continued-fraction search for zero incoming amplitude. The universal relations are polynomial fits of $\Omega_f \equiv M\omega_f$ against the dimensionless moment of inertia $\bar I \equiv I/M^3$ and the dimensionless tidal deformability $\Lambda$, plus a fit of $\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\Omega_f$ against $\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}\Omega_f$. The pasta equations of state are generated by minimizing the energy of a unit cell of the mixed phase with a sharp hadron-quark interface, whose surface tension $\sigma$ is varied over $0$, $10$, and $30\,\mathrm{MeV\,fm^{-2}}$ and produces droplet, rod, slab, tube, and bubble geometries. The equilibrium sound speed $c_e = \sqrt{dp/d\varepsilon}$, which assumes reactions faster than the oscillation, supplies the restoring force in the perturbation equations.

What would settle it

Recompute the f-mode eigenfrequencies for the same hybrid equations of state assuming the oscillation is too fast for weak reactions or pasta rearrangement to keep up (frozen composition), and compare with the universal relations; if the deviations exceed the paper's quoted few-percent band, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors establish that the complex eigenfrequency of the quadrupole f-mode, $\Omega_f = M\omega_f$, for hybrid stars with a hadron-quark pasta mixed phase falls on the same universal relations as for purely hadronic stars. Against the polynomial fits from the literature, the real (imaginary) parts of $\Omega_f$ agree within about 1% (5%) as a function of dimensionless moment of inertia $\bar I$, within 3% (10%) as a function of dimensionless tidal deformability $\Lambda$, and the imaginary-real relation $\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\Omega_f(\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}\Omega_f)$ agrees within 3%. The deviations of the hybrid branches from these fits are smaller than the differences among different nucleonic equations of state, so the universal relations cannot give any indication of the presence of quark matter. The computed f-mode frequencies lie between 1.5 and 2.5 kHz with damping times of a few tenths of a second for both pure and hybrid stars.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that inside the star all composition-changing reactions are fast enough that the oscillation sees the same pressure-density relation as static matter; if weak reactions or the rearrangement of the pasta structures take longer than the millisecond-scale oscillation, the restoring force would differ and the computed frequencies—and their agreement with universal relations—could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the universal relations hold for pasta hybrid stars, a measured f-mode frequency from a future gravitational-wave event can be used to infer the mass, radius, or tidal deformability of a neutron star without knowing whether its core is hadronic or hybrid.
  • The f-mode frequency and damping time cannot serve as a quark-matter diagnostic on their own; distinguishing hybrid from hadronic stars will require combining f-mode measurements with other observables, such as the inspiral tidal deformability and the post-merger peak frequency.
  • The lowest-order post-Newtonian quadrupole formula reproduces the full general-relativistic damping time within 7%, so amplitude estimates for f-mode gravitational-wave bursts based on that formula are reliable for the considered equations of state.
  • Neglecting metric perturbations in the oscillation equations overestimates the f-mode frequency by about 25% for a 1.4-solar-mass star, so full general relativity is required for quantitative f-mode asteroseismology.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: If f-modes are truly composition-blind, g-modes, whose restoring force is buoyancy and which respond to composition gradients, are the more promising asteroseismic probe for quark matter in hybrid stars.
  • Extension: The paper's strain formula shows the peak gravitational-wave strain depends on the oscillation frequency and radiated energy but not on the equation of state; a null detection of f-mode bursts from galactic glitching pulsars with known glitch energies would therefore bound the fraction of glitch energy converted into f-mode oscillations.
  • Extension: The equilibrium-sound-speed assumption deserves a direct check with a two-fluid or frequency-dependent treatment, because a slow pasta-interface or weak-reaction timescale could alter the f-mode frequency by more than the few-percent band quoted for the universal relations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes quadrupole (l=2) f-mode complex frequencies in full general relativity for nonrotating neutron stars, using BHF nucleonic equations of state (V18, BOB) matched to a Shen2020 crust and a Dyson-Schwinger quark-matter EOS, connected by a hadron-quark mixed phase built from energy minimization with pasta geometries (droplet, rod, slab, tube, bubble) for surface tensions sigma = 0, 10, and 30 MeV fm^-2. The oscillation solver is validated against polytropic, SLy4, and p-mode reference results from the literature. The authors then test several universal relations (Omega_f versus dimensionless moment of inertia, Omega_f versus tidal deformability, and Im Omega_f versus Re Omega_f), reporting deviations of about 1% (5%) for the real (imaginary) parts in Omega_f(Ibar), 3% (10%) for Omega_f(Lambda), and 3% for Im Omega_f(Re Omega_f), and conclude that f-mode universal relations cannot distinguish hybrid stars with pasta structure from hadronic stars. They also estimate GW strains from f-mode bursts and discuss detectability with current and future detectors.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper provides a useful extension of f-mode universal relations to a previously untested EOS class: hybrid stars with finite-surface-tension pasta mixed phases. The negative conclusion that the URs cannot signal the presence of quark matter is observationally relevant and is stated with concrete numerical tolerances. Strengths of the paper include a nontrivial full-GR implementation validated against three independent reference cases, a direct side-by-side comparison of hadronic and pasta-hybrid branches, and a transparent treatment of the surface-tension dependence. The central claim is not circular: the URs are external fits, and the paper tests them rather than deriving them. The main caveat is that the perturbation calculation uses an equilibrium sound speed in the mixed phase without a supporting timescale argument; if that assumption fails, the quoted few-percent deviations could change.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. III.B (after Eq. (29))] The perturbation equations are integrated with c_s replaced by the equilibrium sound speed c_e = sqrt(dp/depsilon), justified only by the statement 'under the assumption that reactions are faster than the oscillation.' No timescale estimate is given, and for a ~2 kHz f-mode in cold matter the assumption is not self-evident. In the pasta mixed phase of Sec. II.C the issue is sharper: c_e is the derivative along the energy-minimization path that includes re-equilibration of the Wigner-Seitz cell geometry among droplet, rod, slab, tube, and bubble configurations. Those geometrical degrees of freedom cannot relax on the oscillation period. If the correct restoring-force derivative is instead a frozen-composition, frozen-geometry adiabatic index, the eigenfrequencies and damping times of the hybrid branches will change, and the UR deviations quoted in Sec. IV.C (1%/5% for Omega_f(Ibar), 3%/10% for Omega_f(Lambda), and 3% for Im Omega_f(Re Omega_f)) could shift by more than the quoted tolerances. The validation against polytropic and SLy4 data does not resolve this issue, because all runs use the same c_e in the same implementation. I request either a quantitative estimate of the relevant relaxation timescales or a repeat of the f-mode calculation with a frozen-composition/frozen-geometry sound speed for at least the 1.4 solar mass and maximum-mass configurations, to show that the UR-compliance conclusion is robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (44)] Equation (44) contains an unresolved citation placeholder '[ ? ]'; please supply the missing reference for the derivation of Qdot_33.
  2. [Sec. III.B] The notation for the sound speed is inconsistent: c_s appears in Eq. (28), while c_e is introduced only after Eq. (29); please define both symbols explicitly and state which one enters the final form of Eq. (28).
  3. [Sec. II.C] The sentence 'In our model, all configurations of HSs with MC are unstable, due to violation of the stability condition partial M/partial epsilon_c >= 0' is asserted without derivation or reference; since this claim is not central to the paper, a short explanation or citation would be helpful.
  4. [Sec. IV.D, Eq. (52)] The suspected factor sqrt(3/2) discrepancy with Eq. (3) of Ref. [147] is left as a conjecture; please pin down the normalization convention for h_+ and the inclination angle so that the factor is resolved rather than merely noted.
  5. [Fig. 3] The 'blank dots' for bifurcation points and 'full dots' for maximum-mass configurations are hard to distinguish in the printed figure; consider larger markers or distinct symbol shapes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper tests external universal-relation fits against independently constructed hybrid-star EOSs; no claim reduces to its own input by construction.

full rationale

The central claim is a compliance test: f-mode eigenfrequencies obtained by solving the full-GR perturbation equations are compared with universal-relation fits published by Zhao, Chirenti, Sotani, and Pradhan. Those fits (Eqs. (50)-(51)) are external polynomial parametrizations, not fits to the data of this paper, so 'confirming' them does not reduce to the input by construction. The EOS inputs, including the BHF parametrizations from Refs. [67,77] and the DSM quark model from Refs. [70,71], are independent theoretical inputs calibrated to nuclear saturation properties, GW170817, and NICER constraints, and the numerical code is benchmarked against published polytrope and SLy4 results. Self-citations in the EOS input are therefore not load-bearing: none of the cited quantities is defined in terms of the f-mode frequencies or of the universal-relation fits. The equilibrium sound-speed replacement c_e = sqrt(dp/dε) introduced in Sec. III.B is a physical assumption that could alter the results if reactions are not fast on the kHz oscillation timescale, but it is a correctness risk, not circularity, because the UR compliance is not encoded in that replacement. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the nuclear and quark EOS models, the pasta construction, the surface-tension scan, and the equilibrium sound-speed approximation. No new physical entities are introduced. The universal relations used as benchmarks are external fits, so the circularity burden is low.

free parameters (3)
  • surface tension sigma = 10 and 30 MeV fm^-2 (plus 0 for Gibbs construction)
    The hadron-quark interface tension is poorly known; the paper treats it as a free parameter and scans three values, which sets the density range and shapes of the pasta phase.
  • DSM interaction parameter alpha_DS = 1.5
    Chosen for compatibility with current neutron star observations; it controls the strength of the in-medium effective interaction in the quark matter model.
  • bag constant B_DS = 90 MeV fm^-3
    Sets the pressure of quark matter at zero density; taken from Refs. [71,79,83], not independently determined in this paper.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption BHF theory with V18 or Bonn-B potentials plus compatible three-body forces provides a realistic nuclear equation of state.
    Used in Sec. II.A to construct the hadronic phase; the paper adopts empirical parametrizations from Refs. [67,77].
  • domain assumption Dyson-Schwinger quark model with rainbow approximation and a Gaussian effective interaction describes deconfined quark matter.
    Used in Sec. II.B; the model parameters are taken from earlier work by the same group.
  • domain assumption Energy minimization in a Wigner-Seitz cell with a sharp hadron-quark interface and finite surface tension determines the pasta structures.
    Used in Sec. II.C to build the mixed phase; neglects dynamical or non-equilibrium effects.
  • ad hoc to paper Reactions are faster than the f-mode oscillation, so the equilibrium sound speed c_e = sqrt(dp/depsilon) can be used in the perturbation equations.
    Explicitly introduced in Sec. III.B as an approximation; this is a load-bearing modeling choice for the mixed phase.
  • domain assumption The neutron stars are cold, non-rotating, neutrino-free, beta-equilibrated, and isolated.
    Stated in Sec. II.A and Sec. V; f-mode results for hot, rotating, or accreting stars would differ.
  • standard math Standard stellar perturbation theory (Thorne-Campolattaro, Regge-Wheeler, Zerilli) and TOV equations are valid.
    Used in Sec. III; the numerical implementation is validated against Refs. [46,58,105].
  • domain assumption The published universal-relation fits (Zhao 2022, Chirenti 2015, Sotani 2021, Pradhan 2022) accurately represent the true EOS-insensitive behavior.
    The paper's deviations are measured against these fits; if the fits are biased, the stated percent deviations would not be meaningful.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $f$-mode oscillations of hybrid stars with pasta construction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5EAJWZ6C

@misc{pith2026241115697,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $f$-mode oscillations of hybrid stars with pasta construction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5EAJWZ6C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15697}
}
abstract

We investigate nonradial $f$-mode oscillations of hybrid neutron stars in full general relativity, employing hybrid equations of state describing a nuclear outer core and a pasta-phase transition to a quark-matter core. The validity of various universal relations is confirmed for those stars. Prospects of observations are also discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15697 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Energy density of the MP with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The mass-radius relations of NSs obtained with various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The dimensionless tidal deformability (upper panel) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Real parts of the dimensionless metric perturbation am [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) GW Frequencies and (b) damping times of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Top panels: The URs of [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The peak strain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Upper panel : The UR of [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

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

  1. Role of density profile of sub-GeV dark matter in the properties of dark matter admixed quark stars with Bayesian analysis of dark-NJL model

    hep-ph 2025-09 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A model of quark stars with a variable dark matter density profile claims sub-GeV dark matter can satisfy all current compact star constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

155 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Bauswein, N.-U

    A. Bauswein, N.-U. F. Bastian, D. B. Blaschke, K. Chatziioan- nou, J. A. Clark, T. Fischer, and M. Oertel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 061102 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. N ¨attil¨a, and A. Vuorinen, Nature Phys. 16, 907 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Bhattacharyya, I

    A. Bhattacharyya, I. N. Mishustin, and W. Greiner, J. Phys. G 37, 025201 (2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    S. Han, M. A. A. Mamun, S. Lalit, C. Constantinou, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D 100, 103022 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    N. K. Glendenning, Phys. Rev. D 46, 1274 (1992)

    1992

  6. [6]

    Schertler, C

    K. Schertler, C. Greiner, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and M. H. Thoma, Nucl. Phys. A 677, 463 (2000)

    2000

  7. [7]

    Yang and H

    F. Yang and H. Shen, Phys. Rev. C 77, 025801 (2008)

    2008

  8. [8]

    H. Chen, G. F. Burgio, H.-J. Schulze, and N. Yasutake, As- tron. Astrophys. 551, A13 (2013)

    2013

Show all 155 references
  1. [9]

    Heiselberg, C

    H. Heiselberg, C. J. Pethick, and E. F. Staubo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1355 (1993)

    1993

  2. [10]

    T. Endo, T. Maruyama, S. Chiba, and T. Tatsumi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 115, 337 (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    Maruyama, S

    T. Maruyama, S. Chiba, H.-J. Schulze, and T. Tatsumi, Phys. Rev. D 76, 123015 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    Yasutake, R

    N. Yasutake, R. Łastowiecki, S. Beni ´c, D. Blaschke, T. Maruyama, and T. Tatsumi, Phys. Rev. C 89, 065803 (2014). 12

    2014

  5. [13]

    X. H. Wu and H. Shen, Phys. Rev. C 99, 065802 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    C.-J. Xia, T. Maruyama, N. Yasutake, T. Tatsumi, H. Shen, and H. Togashi, Phys. Rev. D102, 023031 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    M. Ju, J. Hu, and H. Shen, Astrophys. J. 923, 250 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

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

    2017

  10. [18]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 892, L3 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 9, 011001 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    These constraints are all compatible with our pure NS results

    (purple bar), as well as the constraints on the MOI of the pulsar J0737-3039A based on the GW170817 tidal measure- ment [127] (grey bar) or by using the multimessenger con- straints on the radius [128] in combination with the radius- MOI relation [129] (green bar) are also sho...

  13. [21]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 850, L39 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

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

    2018

  15. [23]

    Ferreira, R

    M. Ferreira, R. C. Pereira, and C. Provid ˆencia, Phys. Rev. D 102, 083030 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    H. Tan, J. Noronha-Hostler, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 261104 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Demircik, C

    T. Demircik, C. Ecker, and M. J ¨arvinen, Astrophys. J. Lett. 907, L37 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Dexheimer, R

    V . Dexheimer, R. O. Gomes, T. Kl¨ahn, S. Han, and M. Sali- nas, Phys. Rev. C 103, 025808 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    K. S. Thorne and A. Campolattaro, Astrophys. J. 149, 591 (1967)

    1967

  20. [28]

    Blaschke and M

    D. Blaschke and M. Cierniak, Astronomische Nachrichten 342, 227 (2021)

    2021

  21. [30]

    Radice, V

    D. Radice, V . Morozova, A. Burrows, D. Vartanyan, and H. Nagakura, Astrophys. J. Lett. 876, L9 (2019)

    2019

  22. [31]

    Vretinaris, N

    S. Vretinaris, N. Stergioulas, and A. Bauswein, Phys. Rev. D 101, 084039 (2020)

    2020

  23. [32]

    Stergioulas, A

    N. Stergioulas, A. Bauswein, K. Zagkouris, and H.-T. Janka, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 418, 427 (2011)

    2011

  24. [33]

    D. D. Doneva, E. Gaertig, K. D. Kokkotas, and C. Kr ¨uger, Phys. Rev. D 88, 044052 (2013)

    2013

  25. [34]

    Soultanis, A

    T. Soultanis, A. Bauswein, and N. Stergioulas, Phys. Rev. D 105, 043020 (2022)

    2022

  26. [35]

    Bai, W.-J

    Z. Bai, W.-J. Fu, and Y .-X. Liu, Astrophys. J.922, 266 (2021)

    2021

  27. [36]

    W. Wei, M. Salinas, T. Kl ¨ahn, P. Jaikumar, and M. Barry, Astrophys. J. 904, 187 (2020)

    2020

  28. [37]

    Constantinou, S

    C. Constantinou, S. Han, P. Jaikumar, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123032 (2021)

    2021

  29. [38]

    Jaikumar, A

    P. Jaikumar, A. Semposki, M. Prakash, and C. Constantinou, Phys. Rev. D 103, 123009 (2021)

    2021

  30. [39]

    Zheng, T.-T

    Z.-Y . Zheng, T.-T. Sun, H. Chen, J.-B. Wei, G. F. Burgio, and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103048 (2023)

    2023

  31. [40]

    T. Zhao, C. Constantinou, P. Jaikumar, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103025 (2022)

    2022

  32. [41]

    V . Tran, S. Ghosh, N. Lozano, D. Chatterjee, and P. Jaikumar, Phys. Rev. C 108, 015803 (2023)

    2023

  33. [42]

    V . A. Dommes and M. E. Gusakov, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 455, 2852 (2016)

    2016

  34. [43]

    Yu and N

    H. Yu and N. N. Weinberg, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 464, 2622 (2017)

    2017

  35. [44]

    E. M. Kantor and M. E. Gusakov, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 442, 90 (2014)

    2014

  36. [45]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Reviews in Rela- tivity 2, 2 (1999)

    1999

  37. [46]

    P. B. Rau and I. Wasserman, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 481, 4427 (2018)

    2018

  38. [47]

    Chirenti, R

    C. Chirenti, R. Gold, and M. C. Miller, Astrophys. J. 837, 67 (2017)

    2017

  39. [48]

    Kunjipurayil, T

    A. Kunjipurayil, T. Zhao, B. Kumar, B. K. Agrawal, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063005 (2022)

    2022

  40. [49]

    Andersson and K

    N. Andersson and K. D. Kokkotas, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 299, 1059 (1998)

    1998

  41. [50]

    Steinhoff, T

    J. Steinhoff, T. Hinderer, T. Dietrich, and F. Foucart, Physical Review Research 3, 033129 (2021)

    2021

  42. [51]

    T. K. Chan, Y .-H. Sham, P. T. Leung, and L.-M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 90, 124023 (2014)

    2014

  43. [52]

    B. K. Pradhan, D. Chatterjee, M. Lanoye, and P. Jaikumar, Phys. Rev. C 106, 015805 (2022)

    2022

  44. [53]

    Andersson and P

    N. Andersson and P. Pnigouras, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 503, 533 (2021)

    2021

  45. [54]

    Hinderer et al., Phys

    T. Hinderer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 181101 (2016)

    2016

  46. [55]

    Chirenti, G

    C. Chirenti, G. H. de Souza, and W. Kastaun, Phys. Rev. D 91, 044034 (2015)

    2015

  47. [56]

    H. K. Lau, P. T. Leung, and L. M. Lin, Astrophys. J.714, 1234 (2010)

    2010

  48. [57]

    Sotani and T

    H. Sotani and T. Kojo, Phys. Rev. D 108, 063004 (2023)

    2023

  49. [58]

    Sotani and B

    H. Sotani and B. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123002 (2021)

    2021

  50. [59]

    J. P. Jeukenne, A. Lejeune, and C. Mahaux, Phys. Rep. 25, 83 (1976)

    1976

  51. [60]

    Zhao and J

    T. Zhao and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D 106, 123002 (2022)

    2022

  52. [61]

    Grang ´e, A

    P. Grang ´e, A. Lejeune, M. Martzolff, and J.-F. Mathiot, Phys. Rev. C 40, 1040 (1989)

    1989

  53. [62]

    Baldo, Int

    M. Baldo, Int. Rev. Nucl. Phys. 8, 1 (1999)

    1999

  54. [63]

    Z. H. Li, U. Lombardo, H.-J. Schulze, and W. Zuo, Phys. Rev. C 77, 034316 (2008)

    2008

  55. [64]

    W. Zuo, A. Lejeune, U. Lombardo, and J. F. Mathiot, Nucl. Phys. A 706, 418 (2002)

    2002

  56. [65]

    Kohno, Phys

    M. Kohno, Phys. Rev. C 88, 064005 (2013)

    2013

  57. [66]

    Z. H. Li and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. C 78, 028801 (2008)

    2008

  58. [67]

    Wei, J.-J

    J.-B. Wei, J.-J. Lu, G. F. Burgio, Z.-H. Li, and H.-J. Schulze, Euro. Phys. J. A 56, 63 (2020)

    2020

  59. [68]

    Fukukawa, M

    K. Fukukawa, M. Baldo, G. F. Burgio, L. Lo Monaco, and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. C 92, 065802 (2015)

    2015

  60. [69]

    J.-B. Wei, G. F. Burgio, A. R. Raduta, and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. C 104, 065806 (2021)

    2021

  61. [70]

    G. F. Burgio, H.-J. Schulze, I. Vida ˜na, and J.-B. Wei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 120, 103879 (2021)

    2021

  62. [71]

    H. Chen, J. B. Wei, M. Baldo, G. F. Burgio, and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. D 91, 105002 (2015)

    2015

  63. [72]

    H. Chen, M. Baldo, G. F. Burgio, and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. D 84, 105023 (2011)

    2011

  64. [73]

    Alkofer and L

    R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rep. 353, 281 (2001)

    2001

  65. [74]

    C. D. Roberts and A. G. Williams, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.. 33, 477 (1994)

    1994

  66. [75]

    Machleidt, K

    R. Machleidt, K. Holinde, and C. Elster, Phys. Rep. 149, 1 (1987)

    1987

  67. [76]

    R. B. Wiringa, V . G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C 51, 38 (1995)

    1995

  68. [77]

    J. J. Lu, Z. H. Li, G. F. Burgio, A. Figura, and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. C 100, 054335 (2019)

    2019

  69. [78]

    Machleidt, Adv

    R. Machleidt, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 19, 189 (1989)

    1989

  70. [79]

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

    2012

  71. [80]

    H. Shen, F. Ji, J. Hu, and K. Sumiyoshi, Astrophys. J. 891, 148 (2020)

    2020

  72. [81]

    H. Chen, W. Yuan, L. Chang, Y . X. Liu, T. Kl¨ahn, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D 78, 116015 (2008)

    2008

  73. [82]

    Z. H. Luo, J. B. Wei, G. Chen, H. Chen, and H.-J. Schulze, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 34, 1950202 (2019)

    2019

  74. [83]

    J. B. Wei, H. Chen, G. F. Burgio, and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043008 (2017)

    2017

  75. [84]

    Kl ¨ahn, C

    T. Kl ¨ahn, C. D. Roberts, L. Chang, H. Chen, and Y . X. Liu, Phys. Rev. C 82, 035801 (2010). 13

    2010

  76. [85]

    Lugones and A

    G. Lugones and A. G. Grunfeld, Phys. Rev. C 95, 015804 (2017)

    2017

  77. [86]

    M. S. Berger and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. C 35, 213 (1987)

    1987

  78. [87]

    L. F. Palhares and E. S. Fraga, Phys. Rev. D82, 125018 (2010)

    2010

  79. [88]

    Lugones and A

    G. Lugones and A. G. Grunfeld, Phys. Rev. C 99, 035804 (2019)

    2019

  80. [89]

    M. B. Pinto, V . Koch, and J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. C 86, 025203 (2012)

    2012

  81. [90]

    Kroff and E

    D. Kroff and E. S. Fraga, Phys. Rev. D 91, 025017 (2015)

    2015

  82. [91]

    A. F. Garcia and M. B. Pinto, Phys. Rev. C88, 025207 (2013)

    2013

  83. [92]

    B. W. Mintz, R. Stiele, R. O. Ramos, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 87, 036004 (2013)

    2013

  84. [93]

    E. S. Fraga, M. Hippert, and A. Schmitt, Phys. Rev. D 99, 014046 (2019)

    2019

  85. [94]

    Ke and Y .-X

    W.-Y . Ke and Y .-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D89, 074041 (2014)

    2014

  86. [95]

    Lugones, A

    G. Lugones, A. G. Grunfeld, and M. A. Ajmi, Phys. Rev. C 88, 045803 (2013)

    2013

  87. [96]

    Gao and Y .-X

    F. Gao and Y .-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D94, 094030 (2016)

    2016

  88. [97]

    Alford, K

    M. Alford, K. Rajagopal, S. Reddy, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D 64, 074017 (2001)

    2001

  89. [98]

    X. J. Wen, J. Y . Li, J. Q. Liang, and G. X. Peng, Phys. Rev. C 82, 025809 (2010)

    2010

  90. [99]

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

    1939

  91. [100]

    Oppenheimer and G

    J. Oppenheimer and G. V olkoff, Phys. Rev.55, 374 (1939)

    1939

  92. [101]

    Hinderer, B

    T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang, and J. S. Read, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123016 (2010)

    2010

  93. [102]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

    T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J. 677, 1216 (2008)

    2008

  94. [103]

    J.-B. Wei, A. Figura, G. F. Burgio, H. Chen, and H.-J. Schulze, J. Phys. G 46, 034001 (2019)

    2019

  95. [104]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rep. 442, 109 (2007)

    2007

  96. [105]

    Sotani, K

    H. Sotani, K. Tominaga, and K.-I. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 65, 024010 (2001)

    2001

  97. [106]

    S. L. Detweiler and L. Lindblom, Astrophys. J.292, 12 (1985)

    1985

  98. [107]

    Szczepanczyk et al., Phys

    M. Szczepanczyk et al., Phys. Rev. D 104, 102002 (2021)

    2021

  99. [108]

    K. S. Thorne, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 299 (1980)

    1980

  100. [109]

    K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J. 158, 1 (1969)

    1969

  101. [110]

    L. S. Finn and C. R. Evans, Astrophys. J. 351, 588 (1990)

    1990

  102. [111]

    Arzoumanian et al

    Z. Arzoumanian et al. , Astrophys. J., Suppl. Ser. 235, 37 (2018)

    2018

  103. [112]

    Reisenegger and P

    A. Reisenegger and P. Goldreich, Astrophys. J. 395, 240 (1992)

    1992

  104. [113]

    Fonseca et al., Astrophys

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

    2021

  105. [114]

    The mass-radius results of the NICER mission for the pulsars J0030+0451 [115–117], and J0740+6620 [118–123], PSR J0437-4715 [124] are also plotted in the figure

    or provide an additional constraint on the surface ten- sion. The mass-radius results of the NICER mission for the pulsars J0030+0451 [115–117], and J0740+6620 [118–123], PSR J0437-4715 [124] are also plotted in the figure. The combined analysis of those pulsars together with ...

  106. [115]

    Antoniadis et al., Science 340, 448 (2013)

    J. Antoniadis et al., Science 340, 448 (2013)

    2013

  107. [116]

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V . Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L17 (2022)

    2022

  108. [117]

    T. E. Riley et al., Astrophys. J. 887, L21 (2019)

    2019

  109. [118]

    M. C. Miller et al., Astrophys. J. 887, L24 (2019)

    2019

  110. [119]

    Vinciguerra et al., Astrophys

    S. Vinciguerra et al., Astrophys. J. 961, 62 (2024)

    2024

  111. [120]

    T. E. Riley et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L27 (2021)

    2021

  112. [121]

    M. C. Miller et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L28 (2021)

    2021

  113. [122]

    P. T. H. Pang, I. Tews, M. W. Coughlin, M. Bulla, C. Van Den Broeck, and T. Dietrich, Astrophys. J. 922, 14 (2021)

    2021

  114. [123]

    Raaijmakers, S

    G. Raaijmakers, S. K. Greif, K. Hebeler, T. Hinderer, S. Nis- sanke, A. Schwenk, T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, J. M. Lattimer, and W. C. G. Ho, Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L29 (2021)

    2021

  115. [124]

    Salmi et al., Astrophys

    T. Salmi et al., Astrophys. J. 974, 294 (2024)

    2024

  116. [125]

    A. J. Dittmann et al., Astrophys. J. 974, 295 (2024)

    2024

  117. [126]

    Choudhury et al., Astrophys

    D. Choudhury et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 971, L20 (2024)

    2024

  118. [127]

    Rutherford et al., Astrophys

    N. Rutherford et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 971, L19 (2024)

    2024

  119. [128]

    T. T. Sun, Z. Y . Zheng, H. Chen, G. F. Burgio, and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. D 103, 103003 (2021)

    2021

  120. [129]

    Landry and B

    P. Landry and B. Kumar, Astrophys. J. Lett. 868, L22 (2018)

    2018

  121. [130]

    Dietrich, M

    T. Dietrich, M. W. Coughlin, P. T. H. Pang, M. Bulla, J. Heinzel, L. Issa, I. Tews, and S. Antier, Science 370, 1450 (2020)

    2020

  122. [131]

    J. M. Lattimer, Universe 5, 159 (2019)

    2019

  123. [132]

    Wen, B.-A

    D.-H. Wen, B.-A. Li, H.-Y . Chen, and N.-B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 99, 045806 (2019)

    2019

  124. [133]

    T. G. Cowling, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 101, 367 (1941)

    1941

  125. [134]

    Pratten, P

    G. Pratten, P. Schmidt, and T. Hinderer, Nature Communica- tions 11, 2553 (2020)

    2020

  126. [135]

    K. D. Kokkotas, T. A. Apostolatos, and N. Andersson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 320, 307 (2001)

    2001

  127. [136]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 88, 023009 (2013)

    2013

  128. [137]

    Gross-Boelting, C

    T. Gross-Boelting, C. Fuchs, and A. Faessler, Nucl. Phys. A 648, 105 (1999)

    1999

  129. [138]

    Akmal, V

    A. Akmal, V . R. Pandharipande, and D. G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1804 (1998)

    1998

  130. [139]

    Hempel and J

    M. Hempel and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A 837, 210 (2010)

    2010

  131. [140]

    A. W. Steiner, M. Hempel, and T. Fischer, Astrophys. J. 774, 17 (2013)

    2013

  132. [141]

    Typel, G

    S. Typel, G. R ¨opke, T. Kl¨ahn, D. Blaschke, and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C 81, 015803 (2010)

    2010

  133. [142]

    Grill, H

    F. Grill, H. Pais, C. Providˆencia, I. Vida˜na, and S. S. Avancini, Phys. Rev. C 90, 045803 (2014)

    2014

  134. [143]

    J. M. Lattimer and D. F. Swesty, Nucl. Phys. A 535, 331 (1991)

    1991

  135. [144]

    Oertel, A

    M. Oertel, A. F. Fantina, and J. Novak, Phys. Rev. C 85, 055806 (2012)

    2012

  136. [145]

    Blacker, N.-U

    S. Blacker, N.-U. F. Bastian, A. Bauswein, D. B. Blaschke, T. Fischer, M. Oertel, T. Soultanis, and S. Typel, Phys. Rev. D 102, 123023 (2020)

    2020

  137. [146]

    A. G. Lyne et al., Science 303, 1153 (2004)

    2004

  138. [147]

    Burgay et al., Nature (London) 426, 531 (2003)

    M. Burgay et al., Nature (London) 426, 531 (2003)

    2003

  139. [148]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Schafer, Nuovo Cimento B Serie101B, 127 (1988)

    1988

  140. [149]

    W. C. G. Ho, D. I. Jones, N. Andersson, and C. M. Espinoza, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103009 (2020)

    2020

  141. [150]

    Sidery, A

    T. Sidery, A. Passamonti, and N. Andersson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 405, 1061 (2010)

    2010

  142. [151]

    Haskell and D

    B. Haskell and D. I. Jones, Astroparticle Physics 157, 102921 (2024)

    2024

  143. [152]

    Keer and D

    L. Keer and D. I. Jones, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 446, 865 (2015)

    2015

  144. [153]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo Collabo- ration), Living Rev. Relativ.21, 3 (2018)

    2018

  145. [154]

    https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1800042/public https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1800042/public

  146. [155]

    https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1500293/public https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1500293/public

  147. [156]

    Hild et al., Class

    S. Hild et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 094013 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.