Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 75 references

Constraining the Nuclear Equation of State of neutron star via high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillation in short gamma-ray bursts

T0 review · 2 major / 7 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 High-frequency QPOs in two short gamma-ray bursts cannot pin down the neutron star equation of state under either oscillation model.

desk verdict Solid negative result: the two claimed QPOs don't constrain the EOS, but the paper's 'constrainable with z and T' claim needs a mode-assignment scan. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10034 v2 pith:K3GC6GZX submitted 2025-01-17 astro-ph.HE

Jun-Xiang Huang , Hou-Jun Lü , En-Wei Liang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstarequationofstatequasi-periodicoscillationsshortgamma-rayburststorsionalradialhypermassivemagnetargiantflaresseismology
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 asks whether two recently reported kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations in the short gamma-ray bursts GRB 931101B and GRB 910711 can determine the neutron star equation of state. It works through two physical explanations: torsional oscillations of the crust of a cold magnetar during a giant flare, and radial oscillations of a hot hypermassive neutron star formed in a binary merger. In both cases the paper finds that all six equations of state it considers remain consistent with the observed frequencies, so the QPOs do not discriminate among them. The frequencies would become constraining only if the bursts' redshifts and the remnant temperatures could be measured independently.

What carries the argument

The torsional analysis uses the Schumaker-Thorne eigenvalue equation for shear modes in a cold-catalyzed crust, with the shear modulus of a Coulomb solid, solved with zero-radial-displacement boundary conditions at the core-crust interface and surface. The radial analysis uses the Chandrasekhar-Chanmugam pair of ordinary differential equations for adiabatic radial perturbations, treated as a Sturm-Liouville problem whose $n=0$ (f-mode) and $n=1$ (p-mode) eigenfrequencies depend on temperature and central density. The decisive diagnostic is a single number, Metric $=\rho_{\rm gap}-\rho_{\rm cross}$, which measures whether the central-density range allowed by the lower-frequency QPO at the $n=0$ mode and the range allowed by the higher-frequency QPO at the $n=1$ mode overlap at a given temperature.

What would settle it

Measure the redshift of either burst's host galaxy and independently estimate the remnant temperature, then check whether any of the six hot EOSs gives Metric $=0$ at that $(z,T)$; if none does, the radial-oscillation interpretation for that burst is ruled out, and a demonstration that the kHz signals are consistent with noise or outflow effects would void the whole constraint procedure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the cold-magnetar interpretation, the paper solves the general-relativistic torsional mode equation for six zero-temperature equations of state (TM1, NL3, APR, SLy4, DDME2, and GM1) and finds that the mass ranges producing the observed frequencies overlap across all six for both bursts, so the EOS cannot be constrained. Under the hot-merger-remnant interpretation, it solves the radial oscillation eigenvalue problem for six high-temperature equations of state (IUF, TM1, TMA, FSG, BHBLp, and NL3) and finds that at some temperature the central-density bands for the $n=0$ and $n=1$ modes overlap for every EOS except the stiffest, NL3; once unknown redshift up to $z\simeq 1$ is included, NL3 also survives. The paper's central conclusion is negative but constructive: the two QPO frequencies do not single out any EOS, yet they would do so if redshift and temperature were known, because each EOS then requires a distinct temperature for the two mode bands to overlap (Metric $=0$).

Load-bearing premise

The two kilohertz signals are genuine oscillation modes of neutron stars and not noise, instrumental artifacts, or magnetohydrodynamic shearing in the outflow; if they are not stellar oscillations, the paper's EOS analysis does not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the QPOs are torsional crustal modes, the allowed neutron star mass ranges for the six cold EOSs overlap so thoroughly that these two bursts alone cannot discard any of them.
  • If the QPOs are radial modes of a hot remnant, none of the six temperature-dependent EOSs can be excluded once the unknown redshift is allowed to vary up to $z\simeq 1$.
  • A future measurement of the redshift of either burst, together with a remnant temperature estimate, would turn the two observed frequencies into a genuine EOS test through the Metric $=0$ condition.
  • The paper's non-constraint result is consistent with the alternative that the kHz signals come from magnetohydrodynamic shearing in the outflow rather than internal stellar oscillations, in which case seismology would not apply to these bursts.
  • Differences between this result and analyses that claim tight mass-radius constraints are attributed by the paper to different methods and physical assumptions, most notably how redshift enters the two-frequency matching.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same two-mode overlap test could be applied to any future short GRB with two detected kHz QPOs; each new burst with a measured redshift would sharpen or rule out individual EOS models.
  • The paper's treatment assumes a cold crust for torsional modes; if pre-merger neutron stars in inspiraling binaries are warm enough to soften the crust, the shear-mode frequencies would shift and the allowed mass ranges would change, a testable extension of the torsional calculation.
  • Because the frequency ratio $\nu_2/\nu_1$ is redshift independent, combining it with the paper's temperature-sensitive overlap condition might break the redshift-temperature degeneracy more cleanly than either approach alone.
  • A joint analysis with gravitational-wave tidal-deformability constraints from binary neutron star mergers could break the EOS degeneracy left open here, since the QPO-based mass ranges could be cross-checked against independent radius measurements.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether two kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) detected in the short gamma-ray bursts GRB 931101B and GRB 910711 can be used to constrain the neutron-star equation of state. Two physical interpretations are considered: torsional (shear) oscillations of a cold neutron star crust in the context of a low-redshift SGR giant flare, and radial oscillations of a hot hypermassive neutron star remnant of a binary neutron-star merger. For the torsional scenario, the authors compute eigenfrequencies for six cold-catalyzed EOSs and find that the mass ranges allowed by the two QPOs overlap substantially for all six EOSs, so no EOS is excluded. For the radial scenario, they use finite-temperature EOS data from CompOSE and a matching metric in the central-density, temperature, and redshift parameter space; they find that all six EOS can match the observed frequencies for some combination of temperature and redshift, and conclude that the EOS could be constrained only if the redshift and temperature of the remnant were independently measured.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper provides a useful and honest null result: high-frequency QPOs in these two short GRBs do not currently discriminate among representative nuclear EOSs under either a cold crustal torsional or a hot radial-oscillation interpretation. The analysis uses published oscillation equations and public EOS tables, which aids reproducibility, and the authors explicitly acknowledge competing interpretations, including the MHD-shearing alternative. The main contribution is cautionary: it shows that claimed QPO detections in short GRBs should not yet be taken as EOS constraints. The positive claim about future z and T measurements is, however, not supported to the same standard as the null result.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2, 'Metric' definition] The metric is not defined consistently with its verbal description. The text states that 'If the bands do not overlap, ρcross < 0', but the formula ρcross = max[0, min(x0,max,x1,max) − max(x0,min,x1,min)] is non-negative by construction. With both ρgap and ρcross non-negative, overlapping bands give Metric < 0 (since ρgap=0 and ρcross>0), not Metric = 0 as claimed in the sentence 'Metric = 0 implies that there exists a temperature...'. The Figure 6 caption correctly uses Metric < 0 as the overlap condition, so the body text and the definition must be reconciled. This matters because the overlap criterion in the (T, z) plane is the basis for the conclusion that no EOS is ruled out and for the proposed z–T discriminator.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Abstract] The positive conclusion that 'the EOS can only be constrained if the redshift and temperature of the remnant can be measured' is not supported by the analysis as presented. The calculation assumes, without testing, that the lower QPO is the n=0 radial mode and the upper QPO is the n=1 mode of the same isothermal, nonrotating, spherically symmetric HMNS with a single central density. With only two observed frequencies, other (n_i,n_j) assignments can generally reproduce the observed frequency ratio for different EOS at different (T,z), and a genuine merger remnant has strong thermal gradients during the HMNS phase. A robustness check over alternative mode assignments and thermal profiles (or at least an explicit statement of this degeneracy) is needed before claiming that measuring z and T would uniquely select the EOS. Without such support, the abstract's final claim is stronger than the evidence.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eq. (4)] Equation (4) appears to contain a sign error: in Schwarzschild coordinates e^Φ = e^{−Λ} = sqrt(1−2Gm/(rc²)), not a negative quantity. Please verify the expression and, if it is a typographical artifact of transcription, correct it.
  2. [Section 3.2] The paragraph beginning 'On the other hand, the effect of redshift in the above calculation is ignored...' is repeated almost verbatim in Section 3.2; one copy should be deleted.
  3. [Throughout] The name of the first burst is given inconsistently as 'GRB 931101B' and 'GRB 931103B'; please standardize to the name used in the abstract and in Chirenti et al. (2023).
  4. [Section 2.2] There is a typo in 'short-duration GBRs' (should be 'GRBs') in the last paragraph of Section 2.2.
  5. [Section 2.2, 0.5% error] The 0.5% theoretical frequency error is asserted as a simple assumption; since the observed lower-frequency QPO has a width of roughly 1–2%, the authors should state whether the conclusions are robust to a larger (or smaller) theoretical uncertainty, for example by quoting how the derived mass ranges shift.
  6. [Section 4] The discussion of Guedes et al. (2024) is too terse; please specify which method choices (mode identification, treatment of temperature, use of ν2 and ν2/ν1) lead to the different mass–radius constraints.
  7. [Table 2] The layout of Table 2 makes it difficult to see which mass ranges correspond to which burst and which mode; please use a clearer two-column-per-burst format or explicit row labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the observed QPOs are used only as comparison lines in forward seismology calculations, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained forward modeling. The observed QPO frequencies from Chirenti et al. (2023) enter only as horizontal comparison lines in the eigenvalue plots; they are not used to tune any parameter of the oscillation equations. The torsional eigenfrequencies are obtained by solving the Schumaker-Thorne equation with public EOS tables and a standard shear-modulus prescription, and the radial eigenfrequencies by solving the Chandrasekhar equations with CompOSE EOS tables. The 0.5% frequency width is an explicit input assumption about neglected physics, not a fit to the data. In the radial analysis, temperature and redshift are free parameters, so the finding that no EOS is ruled out is a standard underdetermination statement rather than a disguised prediction; the conditional claim that an EOS could be identified if z and T were independently measured is a forward-model inference, not a circular one. The only self-citation, Lu et al. (2015) for the short-GRB redshift range 0-1, is an empirical input and is not load-bearing for the central conclusion. No equation reduces to its own output, and no fitted quantity is re-labeled as a prediction. Therefore the circularity burden is not met.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central assumptions are the reality of the QPO detections, the applicability of established oscillation formalisms, and the idealized isothermal treatment of the post-merger remnant. No new physical entities are introduced; the only hand-chosen numeric input is the 0.5% torsional frequency error.

free parameters (1)
  • Torsional frequency error = 0.5% (0.005)
    Adopted for torsional oscillation frequency uncertainties; justified heuristically via magnetic field correction (Eq. 6) and redshift upper limit, but not derived from a full model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The two short GRBs genuinely contain the reported kHz QPOs
    The analysis takes the Chirenti et al. (2023) detections at face value; the identification is still debated and the paper itself notes alternatives in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Torsional oscillation frequencies are governed by Eq. (2) with shear modulus from Eq. (5)
    Standard GR torsional oscillation formalism (Schumaker & Thorne 1983) applied to a cold catalyzed crust; shear modulus from Ogata & Ichimaru (1990) and Douchin & Haensel (2000).
  • domain assumption Radial oscillation eigenfrequencies are computed from Eqs. (8)-(9) with an isothermal temperature profile
    The HMNS is treated as having a single temperature throughout, while real merger remnants have temperature gradients; this simplification is not flagged in the text.
  • ad hoc to paper The two GRBs could be low-redshift SGR giant flares for the torsional analysis
    The authors explicitly hypothesize z < 0.015 SGR origin in Section 2 despite Chirenti et al. (2023) arguing against it, to explore the torsional mechanism.
  • domain assumption The selected six EOSs are representative of the viable parameter space
    Six EOSs per scenario are chosen without a stated selection criterion; they span stiff to soft behavior, but the conclusion is a non-constraint, so selection bias would only weaken the negative result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining the Nuclear Equation of State of neutron star via high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillation in short gamma-ray bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K3GC6GZX

@misc{pith2026250110034,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining the Nuclear Equation of State of neutron star via high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillation in short gamma-ray bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K3GC6GZX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10034}
}
read the original abstract

The determination of the equation of state (EOS) of a neutron star (NS) and its maximum mass is very important for understanding the formation and properties of NSs under extreme conditions, but they remain open questions. Short-duration gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are believed to originate from the merger of binary NSs or giant flares (GFs) of soft gamma repeaters (SGRs). Recently, the high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) have been claimed to be identified from two short GRBs (GRB 931101B and GRB 910711). In this paper, we propose that the observed high-frequency QPOs in these two short GRBs result from torsional oscillations in the GFs of SGRs associated with cold NSs, or from radial oscillations of hypermassive NSs as the hot remnants of binary NS mergers, and then to constrain the EOS of NSs. For torsional oscillations, the six selected EOSs (TM1, NL3, APR, SLy4, DDME2, and GM1) of NSs suitable for the zero-temperature condition exhibit significant overlap in mass ranges, suggesting that we cannot constrain the EOS of NSs. For radial oscillations, the six selected EOSs (IUF, TM1, TMA, FSG, BHBLp, and NL3) of NSs suitable for the high-temperature condition cannot be ruled out when redshift is considered. However, it is found that the EOS can only be constrained if the redshift and temperature of the remnant can be measured.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10034 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The frequency spectrum log νn vs. the mass M of an NS. The spectrum lines from the bottom to top correspond to n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. The pink and violet horizontal dashed lines correspond to the two high-frequency QPOs from GRB 931101B (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Eigenfrequencies (νn) of various EOS models as a function of the central density (log(ρc)) for different temperatures. The solid and dashed lines correspond to n = 0 modes (i.e., f-mode) and n = 1 modes (i.e., p-mode), respectively. The color bar is the temperature in units of MeV. The horizontal lines represent the two observed high-frequency QPOs for GRB 931101B. The shaded vertical regions correspond to the range… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Metric obtained for different EOS models with varying temperatures. The Metric quantifies the spatial relationship between the ρc ranges corresponding to the n = 0 and n = 1 modes. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Z 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 T [MeV] NL3 TM1 BHBLp TMA IUF FSG GRB 9311…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The relationship between the temperature T and the redshift z for different EOS models. The temperature values correspond to the points where the Metric < 0 (from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Eigenfrequencies νn of the n = 0 (solid lines) and n = 1 (dashed lines) modes as functions of NS mass for different EOS models. The left and right panels correspond to a redshift of z = 0 and z = 1, respectively. The temperatures corresponding to the minimum Metric val…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  2. [2]

    R., & Ravenhall, D

    Akmal, A., Pandharipande, V. R., & Ravenhall, D. G. 1998, PhRvC, 58, 1804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1804

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.58.1804 1998

  3. [3]

    B., Gorham, P

    Anderson, S. B., Gorham, P. W., Kulkarni, S. R., Prince, T. A., & Wolszczan, A. 1990, Nature, 346, 42, doi: 10.1038/346042a0

    doi:10.1038/346042a0 1990

  4. [4]

    T., & Oechslin, R

    Bauswein, A., Janka, H. T., & Oechslin, R. 2010, PhRvD, 82, 084043, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.084043

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.084043 2010

  5. [5]

    2020, PhRvL, 125, 141103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.141103

    Bauswein, A., Blacker, S., Vijayan, V., et al. 2020, PhRvL, 125, 141103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.141103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.141103 2020

  6. [6]

    1971, ApJ, 170, 299, doi: 10.1086/151216

    Baym, G., Pethick, C., & Sutherland, P. 1971, ApJ, 170, 299, doi: 10.1086/151216

    doi:10.1086/151216 1971

  7. [7]

    2003, Nature, 426, 531, doi: 10.1038/nature02124

    Burgay, M., D’Amico, N., Possenti, A., et al. 2003, Nature, 426, 531, doi: 10.1038/nature02124

    doi:10.1038/nature02124 2003

  8. [8]

    2008, ApJL, 685, L19, doi: 10.1086/592350

    Burlon, D., Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2008, ApJL, 685, L19, doi: 10.1086/592350

    doi:10.1086/592350 2008

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    2021, ApJL, 907, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c8

    Burns, E., Svinkin, D., Hurley, K., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c8

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    1964, ApJ, 140, 417, doi: 10.1086/147938

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1964, ApJ, 140, 417, doi: 10.1086/147938

    1964 doi

  3. [11]

    1977, ApJ, 217, 799, doi: 10.1086/155627

    Chanmugam, G. 1977, ApJ, 217, 799, doi: 10.1086/155627

    1977 doi

  4. [12]

    C., & Preece, R

    Chirenti, C., Dichiara, S., Lien, A., Miller, M. C., & Preece, R. 2023, Nature, 613, 253, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05497-0

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    D., & van Eijndhoven, N

    Coppin, P., de Vries, K. D., & van Eijndhoven, N. 2020, PhRvD, 102, 103014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103014

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    G., & Lu, T

    Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 1998a, PhRvL, 81, 4301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4301 —. 1998b, A&A, 333, L87, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9810402

    doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    G., Wang, X

    Dai, Z. G., Wang, X. Y., Wu, X. F., & Zhang, B. 2006, Science, 311, 1127, doi: 10.1126/science.1123606

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    2000, Physics Letters B, 485, 107, doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00672-9 —

    Douchin, F., & Haensel, P. 2000, Physics Letters B, 485, 107, doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00672-9 —. 2001, A&A, 380, 151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011402

    2000 doi

  9. [17]

    Duncan, R. C. 1998, ApJL, 498, L45, doi: 10.1086/311303

    1998 doi

  10. [18]

    C., & Thompson, C

    Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJL, 392, L9, doi: 10.1086/186413

    1992 doi

  11. [19]

    2006, MNRAS, 372, L19, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00217.x

    Fan, Y.-Z., & Xu, D. 2006, MNRAS, 372, L19, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00217.x

    2006

  12. [20]

    T., Pennucci, T

    Fonseca, E., Cromartie, H. T., Pennucci, T. T., et al. 2021, ApJL, 915, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8 9

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, L37, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00974.x

    Stergioulas, N. 2011, MNRAS, 410, L37, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00974.x

    2011

  14. [22]

    A., & M¨ uller, E

    Gabler, M., Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, P., Stergioulas, N., Font, J. A., & M¨ uller, E. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2054, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20454.x

    2012

  15. [23]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5be3

    Gao, H., Zhang, B., L¨ u, H.-J., & Li, Y. 2017, ApJ, 837, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5be3

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    2013, ApJL, 771, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L26

    Giacomazzo, B., & Perna, R. 2013, ApJL, 771, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L26

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    K., & Moszkowski, S

    Glendenning, N. K., & Moszkowski, S. A. 1991, Phys. Rev. Lett., 67, 2414, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.2414

    1991 doi

  18. [26]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    Gondek, D., Haensel, P., & Zdunik, J. L. 1997a, A&A, 325, 217, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9705157 —. 1997b, A&A, 325, 217, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9705157

    doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16534, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16534

    Guedes, V., Radice, D., Chirenti, C., & Yagi, K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16534, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16534

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    1994, A&A, 283, 313, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.nucl-th/9310003

    Haensel, P., & Pichon, B. 1994, A&A, 283, 313, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.nucl-th/9310003

    1994 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Y., & Yakovlev, D

    Haensel, P., Potekhin, A. Y., & Yakovlev, D. G. 2007, Neutron Stars 1 : Equation of State and Structure, Vol. 326 (Springer New York, NY)

    2007

  23. [32]

    A., & Taylor, J

    Hulse, R. A., & Taylor, J. H. 1975, ApJL, 195, L51, doi: 10.1086/181708

    1975 doi

  24. [33]

    A., K¨ onig, J., & Ring, P

    Lalazissis, G. A., K¨ onig, J., & Ring, P. 1997, Phys. Rev. C, 55, 540, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.55.540

    1997 doi

  25. [34]

    A., Nikˇ si´ c, T., Vretenar, D., & Ring, P

    Lalazissis, G. A., Nikˇ si´ c, T., Vretenar, D., & Ring, P. 2005, Phys. Rev. C, 71, 024312, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.024312

    2005 doi

  26. [35]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6c64

    Lan, L., L¨ u, H.-J., Rice, J., & Liang, E.-W. 2020, ApJ, 890, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6c64

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    Coward, D. M. 2014, PhRvD, 89, 047302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.047302

    2014 doi

  28. [37]

    Lattimer, J. M. 2021, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 71, 433, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419-124827

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    M., & Prakash, M

    Lattimer, J. M., & Prakash, M. 2001, ApJ, 550, 426, doi: 10.1086/319702

    2001 doi

  30. [40]

    N., van Horn, H

    McDermott, P. N., van Horn, H. M., & Hansen, C. J. 1988, ApJ, 325, 725, doi: 10.1086/166044

    1988 doi

  31. [41]

    T., & Levin, J

    McWilliams, S. T., & Levin, J. 2011, ApJ, 742, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/90

    2011 doi

  32. [42]

    B., & Stergioulas, N

    Messios, N., Papadopoulos, D. B., & Stergioulas, N. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 1161, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04645.x

    2001

  33. [43]

    R., & Quataert, E

    Most, E. R., & Quataert, E. 2023, ApJL, 947, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acca84

    2023 doi

  34. [44]

    W., & Vautherin, D

    Negele, J. W., & Vautherin, D. 1973, NuPhA, 207, 298, doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(73)90349-7

    1973 doi

  35. [45]

    T., & Marek, A

    Oechslin, R., Janka, H. T., & Marek, A. 2007, A&A, 467, 395, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066682

    2007 doi

  36. [46]

    2017, Rev

    Oertel, M., Hempel, M., Klaehn, T., & Typel, S. 2017, Rev. Mod. Phys., 89, 015007, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015007

    2017 doi

  37. [47]

    1990, Phys

    Ogata, S., & Ichimaru, S. 1990, Phys. Rev. A, 42, 4867, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.42.4867

    1990 doi

  38. [48]

    R., & Volkoff, G

    Oppenheimer, J. R., & Volkoff, G. M. 1939, Physical Review, 55, 374, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.55.374

    1939 doi

  39. [49]

    2013, PhRvL, 111, 061105, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.061105

    Palenzuela, C., Lehner, L., Ponce, M., et al. 2013, PhRvL, 111, 061105, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.061105

    2013 doi

  40. [50]

    Piro, A. L. 2005, ApJL, 634, L153, doi: 10.1086/499049

    2005 doi

  41. [51]

    Rezzolla, L., Baiotti, L., Giacomazzo, B., Link, D., & Font, J. A. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 114105, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/11/114105

    2010 doi

  42. [52]

    J., Veres, P., Baring, M

    Roberts, O. J., Veres, P., Baring, M. G., et al. 2021, Nature, 589, 207, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03077-8

    2021 doi

  43. [53]

    B., Thielemann, F

    Rosswog, S., Davies, M. B., Thielemann, F. K., & Piran, T. 2000, A&A, 360, 171, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0005550

    2000 doi arXiv

  44. [54]

    2020, PhRvD, 101, 063025, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063025

    Sagun, V., Panotopoulos, G., & Lopes, I. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 063025, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063025

    2020 doi

  45. [56]

    L., & Thorne, K

    Schumaker, B. L., & Thorne, K. S. 1983, MNRAS, 203, 457, doi: 10.1093/mnras/203.2.457

    1983 doi

  46. [57]

    L., & Teukolsky, S

    Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1983, Black holes, white dwarfs and neutron stars. The physics of compact objects (Wiley), doi: 10.1002/9783527617661

    1983 doi

  47. [58]

    2005, PhRvL, 94, 201101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.201101

    Shibata, M. 2005, PhRvL, 94, 201101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.201101

    2005 doi

  48. [59]

    D., & Stergioulas, N

    Sotani, H., Kokkotas, K. D., & Stergioulas, N. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 261, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11304.x

    2007

  49. [60]

    2012, Phys

    Sotani, H., Nakazato, K., Iida, K., & Oyamatsu, K. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 201101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.201101 10

    2012 doi

  50. [61]

    W., & Watts, A

    Steiner, A. W., & Watts, A. L. 2009, PhRvL, 103, 181101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.181101

    2009 doi

  51. [62]

    2003, Living Reviews in Relativity, 6, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2003-3

    Stergioulas, N. 2003, Living Reviews in Relativity, 6, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2003-3

    2003 doi

  52. [63]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 427, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19493.x

    Stergioulas, N., Bauswein, A., Zagkouris, K., & Janka, H.-T. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 427, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19493.x

    2011

  53. [64]

    1994, NuPhA, 579, 557, doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(94)90923-7

    Sugahara, Y., & Toki, H. 1994, NuPhA, 579, 557, doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(94)90923-7

    1994 doi

  54. [65]

    2021, Nature, 589, 211, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03076-9

    Svinkin, D., Frederiks, D., Hurley, K., et al. 2021, Nature, 589, 211, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03076-9

    2021 doi

  55. [66]

    2014, PhRvL, 113, 091104, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.091104

    Takami, K., Rezzolla, L., & Baiotti, L. 2014, PhRvL, 113, 091104, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.091104

    2014 doi

  56. [67]

    S., & Campolattaro, A

    Thorne, K. S., & Campolattaro, A. 1967, Non-Radial Pulsation of General-Relativistic Stellar Models. I. Analytic Analysis for L ≥ 2, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 149, p.591, doi: 10.1086/149288

    1967 doi

  57. [68]

    2010, ApJ, 723, 1711, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1711

    Troja, E., Rosswog, S., & Gehrels, N. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1711, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1711

    2010 doi

  58. [69]

    2015, Phys

    Typel, S., Oertel, M., & Klaehn, T. 2015, Phys. Part. Nucl., 46, 633, doi: 10.1134/S1063779615040061

    2015 doi

  59. [70]

    1996, ApJL, 471, L95, doi: 10.1086/310340

    Vietri, M. 1996, ApJL, 471, L95, doi: 10.1086/310340

    1996 doi

  60. [71]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae531

    Wang, J.-S., Peng, F.-K., Wu, K., & Dai, Z.-G. 2018, ApJ, 868, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae531

    2018 doi

  61. [72]

    2020, ApJL, 902, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbfb8

    Zhang, B. 2020, ApJL, 902, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbfb8

    2020 doi

  62. [73]

    L., & Strohmayer, T

    Watts, A. L., & Strohmayer, T. E. 2007, Advances in Space Research, 40, 1446, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2006.12.021

    2007 doi

  63. [74]

    1991, Nature, 350, 688, doi: 10.1038/350688a0

    Wolszczan, A. 1991, Nature, 350, 688, doi: 10.1038/350688a0

    1991 doi

  64. [75]

    2020, ApJ, 899, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba745

    Yang, J., Chand, V., Zhang, B.-B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba745

    2020 doi

  65. [76]

    2013, ApJL, 763, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/L22

    Zhang, B. 2013, ApJL, 763, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/L22

    2013 doi

  66. [77]

    B., Zhang, B., Sun, H., et al

    Zhang, B. B., Zhang, B., Sun, H., et al. 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 447, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-02847-3

    2018 doi

  67. [78]

    Zhong, S.-Q., Dai, Z.-G., Cheng, J.-G., Lan, L., & Zhang, H.-M. 2019, ApJ, 884, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e48 11 T able 1.The Median Frequencies and Widths of QPO for Two GRBs, along with Their ±1σ Values of Central Frequencies GRB T90( sce) ν1( Hz) ∆ ν1( Hz) τ1( sce) ν2( ...

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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