Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Rotating neutron stars: anisotropy model comparison

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pressure anisotropy can raise the maximum stable mass of neutron stars by up to 60 percent, depending on the anisotropy model.

desk verdict Competent numerical comparison; main maximum-mass claims rest on an unproven turning-point stability criterion for anisotropic matter. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16305 v1 pith:6ERCZOQ5 submitted 2025-04-22 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRgr-qc

L. M. Becerra , E. A. Becerra-Vergara , F. D. Lora-Clavijo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRgr-qc
keywords neutronstarspressureanisotropyslowrotationHartle-Thorneformalismmaximummassuniversalrelationsmomentofinertiabindingenergy
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 the internal pressure of a neutron star being different in the radial and tangential directions, a property called pressure anisotropy, can substantially change the star's observable properties. It finds that the maximum stable mass of a non-rotating star can be 15 percent higher with the Horvat model, about 35 percent higher with the Bowers-Liang model, and 50 to 60 percent higher with the covariant model, relative to the isotropic case at the same central density. The paper also finds that for slowly rotating stars, the normalized moment of inertia and binding energy follow universal curves in compactness that are nearly independent of both anisotropy model and equation of state. If these results hold, anisotropy becomes a way to produce very massive neutron stars without inventing a stiffer equation of state, and compactness can be estimated without knowing which anisotropy mechanism is at work.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Hartle-Thorne slow-rotation expansion, which treats rotation as a perturbation of a spherical star and solves the Einstein equations order by order in angular velocity up to $\Omega^2$. The matter is an anisotropic fluid with separate radial pressure $P$ and tangential pressure $P_\perp$, and the three models enter through their prescriptions for the anisotropy $\sigma=P-P_\perp$: the Horvat model makes $\sigma$ proportional to the star's compactness and radial pressure; the Bowers-Liang model ties it to density, pressure, and compactness in a way that survives the non-relativistic limit; and the covariant model ties it to a function of density times the radial pressure gradient, with $f(\epsilon)=\epsilon_c-\epsilon$ chosen to keep the center regular. The maximum mass is identified with the turning point of the mass--central-density curve, and configurations are kept only if both radial and tangential sound speeds stay below the speed of light.

What would settle it

A radial pulsation calculation for the same three anisotropy models that locates the first unstable mode at a lower central density than the turning point would falsify the reported maximum masses, as would a nonlinear dynamical simulation that collapses one of the covariant-model endpoint configurations below the quoted mass.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a model-dependent but roughly equation-of-state-independent relation between anisotropy strength and the maximum mass of a static neutron star: $M_{\rm NS,max}=M_{\lambda=0}^{\max}(1+a\lambda^b)$, with fit parameters $a,b$ listed in Table I for each model. Across three nuclear equations of state, the paper finds that the Horvat model raises the maximum mass by up to about 15 percent, the Bowers-Liang model by about 35 percent, and the covariant model by 50 to 60 percent, with the largest gains when anisotropy is strongest near the surface. For the same slowly rotating solutions, the normalized moment of inertia $I/M^3$ and the binding energy $BE/(M_{\rm NS}c^2)$ fall on universal curves as functions of compactness $C=GM/(c^2R)$, matching the moment-of-inertia fit to about 3 percent and the new binding-energy fit to 10 to 15 percent regardless of anisotropy model or equation of state.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the turning point of the mass--central-density curve is the onset of dynamical instability; for an anisotropic fluid with two different pressures, that premise needs a radial pulsation analysis to confirm, and the paper does not provide one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed neutron stars above $2\,M_\odot$ could be explained by pressure anisotropy rather than by a stiff equation of state, since the covariant model reaches 50 to 60 percent mass enhancement at the same central density.
  • The fitted relation $M_{\rm NS,max}=M_{\lambda=0}^{\max}(1+a\lambda^b)$ lets a measured maximum mass be converted into a constraint on the anisotropy parameter once a model is chosen.
  • A future measurement of the moment of inertia, for example from pulsar timing, would determine compactness through the universal curve without needing to know which anisotropy model is correct.
  • The universal binding-energy curve ties the neutrino energy released at neutron star formation to compactness alone, so supernova neutrino-energy estimates would not depend on the anisotropy mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The stability step is the part to test first: for a two-pressure fluid the maximum mass should be checked against a radial pulsation analysis, and if the first unstable mode appears below the turning point, the quoted mass gains, especially the 50 to 60 percent covariant figure, would shrink.
  • Since the covariant parameter $\lambda_C$ has dimensions of length cubed while $\lambda_H$ and $\lambda_{BL}$ are dimensionless, the model comparison depends on how $f(\epsilon)$ is normalized; a different choice could change the apparent hierarchy of mass enhancements.
  • The universal relations are derived for barotropic equations of state and slow rotation; testing them with non-barotropic microphysics or near the mass-shedding limit would show how wide their validity really is.
  • The pattern linking larger surface anisotropy to larger maximum mass suggests that precision mass-radius measurements of neutron stars could discriminate between anisotropy models if the surface behavior of $\sigma$ is ever pinned down by microphysical input.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies slowly rotating anisotropic neutron stars using the Hartle-Thorne formalism with three anisotropy models (Horvat, Bowers-Liang, and a covariant model) and three nuclear equations of state (SKI3, DD2Y, QHC21). The main results are: (i) the maximum stable mass of non-rotating configurations increases with positive anisotropy strength in a model-dependent way, by up to 15% (Horvat), ~35% (Bowers-Liang), and 50-60% (covariant), summarized by the empirical fit Eq. (29); and (ii) slowly rotating anisotropic stars satisfy universal relations for the normalized moment of inertia and binding energy as functions of compactness, Eqs. (31) and (33). The paper also provides a comparison of anisotropy profiles and notes that the covariant model yields the most compact and massive configurations.

Significance. If correct, the paper's results would have two notable consequences: pressure anisotropy could explain high-mass pulsar observations without modifying the nuclear equation of state, and universal relations would remain valid across anisotropy models, enabling model-independent inference of compactness from future observations. The systematic comparison of three anisotropy models against three EOSs is a useful contribution, and the explicit fit formulas are falsifiable with additional EOSs or stability calculations. The numerical scheme and EOS parametrization are clearly described, and the mass-radius curves are internally consistent. However, the quantitative claims currently rest on an unvalidated stability criterion and are presented with internal sign inconsistencies, so the results are not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (29), Fig. 3] The identification of the turning point of the M(ρ_c) sequence with the onset of dynamical instability is not justified for anisotropic two-pressure fluids. The stress-energy tensor (Eq. 6) contains two independent pressures, P and P⊥, and the stability boundary for such fluids is governed by radial pulsation equations that couple perturbations of the density and both pressures; the turning-point criterion is rigorously established only for barotropic one-pressure stars. The paper enforces only causality in Eq. (28) and does not compute the pulsation spectrum or cite a theorem extending the turning-point criterion to the specific anisotropic closures. Since the maximum-mass claim, especially the 50-60% enhancement for the covariant model, depends directly on this identification, the authors should provide a radial pulsation stability analysis for representative configurations or a rigorous proof that the turning point is the stability boundary for these models. The paper's own reference [34] (Horvat et al. 2011) addresses radial pulsations of anisotropic stars but is not applied here.
  2. [Sec. IV.A (Horvat model) and Sec. V] There are sign-convention inconsistencies in the interpretation of the anisotropy factor. In the text, σ is defined as P − P⊥ (Eq. 15 and surrounding text), so σ > 0 means radial pressure exceeds tangential pressure. However, Sec. IV.A states for the Horvat model: "λH (σ > 0, i.e., P⊥ > P)", which is incorrect. Similarly, Sec. V states "when the anisotropy factor is positive—indicating that the tangential pressure exceeds the radial pressure—the NS configuration achieves a higher mass", which also contradicts the sign convention and the numerical results: the data in Fig. 3 show that positive λ (which gives σ < 0, hence P⊥ > P for the BL and covariant models) produces higher maximum masses. Please correct these statements and verify all sign-dependent claims throughout the manuscript.
  3. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (33), Fig. 4] The claim that the binding-energy universal relation is valid "independent of both the anisotropy model and EOS, with an accuracy better than 10%" is inconsistent with the reported errors. The figure labels show |ΔBE|/BE = 0.120–0.134 (i.e., 12.0–13.4%) for the three anisotropy models, and the text itself states that Eq. (33) reproduces the results "with an error between 10% and 15%". The accuracy statement should be revised to match these values, or the fit should be improved to achieve the claimed 10% accuracy.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table I and Fig. 3] The name "Horvart" appears in Table I and in the left panel of Fig. 3; this should be "Horvat".
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption reads "solid lines its the corresponding GPP fit"; it should read "solid lines are the corresponding GPP fit".
  3. [Fig. 3] The χ² values (0.009, 0.046, 0.391) are reported without degrees of freedom or sample size, making them difficult to interpret; please report reduced χ² or a scatter measure.
  4. [Eq. (31)] The moment-of-inertia universal relation is taken from the authors' own prior work [41]; comparing to an independent relation (e.g., Breu & Rezzolla 2016, Ref. [54]) would strengthen the claim of universality.
  5. [Sec. II] The sentence referring to the TOV equations "see [43] for details" is unclear because [43] is the non-rotating anisotropic code, while the Hartle-Thorne extension is described in [41] and [42]; please clarify the reference.
  6. [Throughout] Please state explicitly that σ = P − P⊥ in the definitions of the anisotropy models, and ensure that all sign statements and figure legends are consistent with this convention.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the maximum-mass enhancement is a direct numerical result; the only mild self-reference is using the authors' prior moment-of-inertia fit (Eq. 31 from [41]) as the benchmark.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. IV B, Eq. (31)]
    "We compare our results with the relation proposed in [41] for the normalized moment of inertia: INS/M3 ≈ 1.019/C + 0.225/C2 − 0.0038/C3 + 2.3×10−5/C4. This relation reproduces our results for different anisotropy models with an error of less than 3%."

    The benchmark relation is taken from the authors' own prior paper [41], which also supplied the Hartle-Thorne anisotropic-star code used to build the present configurations. Using that relation to confirm that the new anisotropic configurations follow universal relations is therefore a consistency check with a self-generated fit rather than an independent external test. The circularity is mild because Fig. 4's plotted scatter independently shows EOS/model independence, so the self-citation is not the sole load-bearing evidence; the step contributes a minor score increase only.

full rationale

The central maximum-mass claim (Eq. 29 and Fig. 3) is a direct numerical integration of the modified TOV equations for the three EOS and three anisotropy models; it does not reduce to a fitted parameter, and the quoted 15%, 35%, and 50–60% enhancements are computed, not fit outputs. The universal-relations claims are supported by the scatter in Fig. 4; Eq. 33 is explicitly introduced as a 'universal fit' whose coefficients are least-squares fitted to the displayed points, so its reported 10–15% error is an in-sample residual rather than a prediction, but the paper does not disguise this as a derivation. The only self-referential element is Eq. 31, taken from the authors' own prior work [41], which uses the same code family; this is a minor self-citation and not the only evidence for the moment-of-inertia universality claim. The turning-point stability criterion for anisotropic two-pressure stars is a physical assumption that would need a radial-pulsation analysis (e.g., along the lines of Horvat et al. [34]), but this is a correctness risk, not a circularity, because the paper does not derive the stability boundary from the target claim. Overall, no prediction in the paper is equivalent to its inputs by construction; the score reflects the single minor self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything the central claims rest on: the HT perturbative expansion, the two-pressure fluid model with barotropic perturbations, the turning-point stability criterion, and the GPP fits to three equations of state. The anisotropy strength parameters are scanned by hand, and the universal-relation coefficients are fitted to the same data, so the reader supplies a substantial modeling and fitting burden.

free parameters (7)
  • λ_H (Horvat anisotropy strength) = scanned range -1 to 1
    Dimensionless model parameter controlling anisotropy strength; the range is chosen following Ref. [43] and is scanned in the results.
  • λ_BL (Bowers-Liang anisotropy strength) = 0 to π/3, shown 0 to 1
    Dimensionless parameter constrained by p0,r < 0 and 0 ≤ c_s,t^2 ≤ 1 (Eqs. 19-20); scanned in the results.
  • λ_C (covariant anisotropy strength) = 0 to ~4×10^3 M_sun^3
    Dimensional parameter with dimensions length^3; no microscopic derivation is given, and it is scanned over a range that produces the 50-60 percent mass increase.
  • a, b in Eq. 29 for Horvat model = a = 0.159 ± 0.003, b = 0.993 ± 0.002
    Fit parameters for the EOS-independent maximum-mass relation, fitted to the numerical maximum-mass data in Fig. 3.
  • a, b in Eq. 29 for Bowers-Liang model = a = 0.326 ± 0.005, b = 1.267 ± 0.039
    Fit parameters for the EOS-independent maximum-mass relation for the Bowers-Liang model.
  • a, b in Eq. 29 for covariant model = a = 0.281 ± 0.002, b = 0.466 ± 0.007
    Fit parameters for the EOS-independent maximum-mass relation for the covariant model.
  • a1, a2, a3 in Eq. 33 = a1 = 0.740 ± 0.004, a2 = -1.859 ± 0.029, a3 = 6.000 ± 0.056
    Fit parameters for the proposed universal binding-energy relation, fitted to the binding-energy data shown in Fig. 4.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math General relativity and the Hartle-Thorne slow-rotation expansion to O(Ω^2) are valid for the stars considered.
    The entire rotating calculation rests on the perturbative HT formalism summarized in Sec. II, including the assumption that second-order terms in angular velocity are sufficient.
  • domain assumption The anisotropic energy-momentum tensor (Eq. 6) with radial and tangential pressures, together with the barotropic perturbation relations (Eq. 14), describes neutron-star matter.
    The result assumes a single fluid with two pressures and that the perturbed energy density is determined by the barotropic derivative dε/dP; this is standard in the literature but is a physical modeling choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The turning point of the M(ρ_c) sequence marks the onset of dynamical instability for anisotropic stars.
    Sec. IV A states 'This turning point marks the onset of dynamical instability' without a radial pulsation analysis for two-pressure anisotropic matter, so the stability boundary is assumed rather than derived.
  • domain assumption The Generalized Piecewise Polytropic fits accurately represent the SKI3, DD2Y, and QHC21 tabulated equations of state.
    The calculation uses GPP fits from Ref. [49] with parameters from Ref. [43]; Fig. 1 shows good agreement but the fits introduce a small model dependence.
  • domain assumption The causality conditions in Eq. 28 (radial and tangential sound speeds below the speed of light) select the physically allowed configurations.
    The sound-speed filters are used to exclude parts of the parameter space, and they are necessary but not sufficient for full dynamical stability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rotating neutron stars: anisotropy model comparison." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ERCZOQ5

@misc{pith2026250416305,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rotating neutron stars: anisotropy model comparison},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ERCZOQ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16305}
}
read the original abstract

We build slowly rotating anisotropic neutron stars using the Hartle-Thorne formalism, employing three distinct anisotropy models--Horvat, Bowers-Liang, and a covariant model--to characterize the relationship between radial and tangential pressure. We analyze how anisotropy influences stellar properties such as the mass-radius relation, angular momentum, moment of inertia, and binding energy. Our findings reveal that the maximum stable mass of non-rotating stars depends strongly on the anisotropy model, with some configurations supporting up to 60% more mass than their isotropic counterparts with the same central density. This mass increase is most pronounced in the models where the anisotropy grows toward the star's surface, as seen in the covariant model. Furthermore, slowly rotating anisotropic stars adhere to universal relations for the moment of inertia and binding energy, regardless of the chosen anisotropy model or equation of state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16305 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Pressure-mass density relation for the SKI3, DD2Y [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Upper panel: Gravitational mass as a function of radius for non-rotating NS configurations with different anisotropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Ratio between the anisotropy maximum mass and the isotropy one as a function of the anisotropy parameter for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Normalized moment of inertia, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Horvat, S

    D. Horvat, S. Iliji´ c, and A. Marunovi´ c, Radial pulsations and stability of anisotropic stars with a quasi-local equa- tion of state, Class. Quantum Gravity 28, 025009 (2011), arXiv:1010.0878 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2011

  2. [1]

    Hewish, S

    A. Hewish, S. J. Bell, J. D. H. Pilkington, P. F. Scott, and R. A. Collins, Observation of a Rapidly Pulsating Radio Source, Nature 217, 709 (1968)

    1968

  3. [2]

    Heiselberg and V

    H. Heiselberg and V. Pandharipande, Recent Progress in Neutron Star Theory, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 50, 481 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003276 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2000

  4. [3]

    N. K. Glendenning, Compact stars: Nuclear physics, par- ticle physics and general relativity (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [4]

    ¨Ozel and P

    F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, Masses, Radii, and the Equation of State of Neutron Stars, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys 54, 401 (2016), arXiv:1603.02698 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [5]

    ¨Ozel, D

    F. ¨Ozel, D. Psaltis, T. G¨ uver, G. Baym, C. Heinke, and S. Guillot, The Dense Matter Equation of State from Neutron Star Radius and Mass Measurements, Astro- phys. J. 820, 28 (2016), arXiv:1505.05155 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [6]

    Frieben and L

    J. Frieben and L. Rezzolla, Equilibrium models of rela- tivistic stars with a toroidal magnetic field, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 427, 3406 (2012), arXiv:1207.4035 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [7]

    Bucciantini, A

    N. Bucciantini, A. G. Pili, and L. Del Zanna, The role of currents distribution in general relativistic equilibria of magnetized neutron stars, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 447, 3278 (2015), arXiv:1412.5347 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Canuto, Equation of state at ultrahigh densities

    V. Canuto, Equation of state at ultrahigh densities. Part 2., Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys 13, 335 (1975)

    1975

  2. [9]

    R. F. Sawyer, Condensedπ− Phase in Neutron-Star Mat- ter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 382 (1972)

    1972

  3. [10]

    Sokolov, Phase transitions in a superfluid neutron liq- uid, Sov

    A. Sokolov, Phase transitions in a superfluid neutron liq- uid, Sov. Phys. J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 52, 575 (1980)

    1980

  4. [11]

    Ruderman, Pulsars: Structure and Dynamics, Annu

    M. Ruderman, Pulsars: Structure and Dynamics, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys 10, 427 (1972)

    1972

  5. [12]

    Herrera and N

    L. Herrera and N. O. Santos, Local anisotropy in self- gravitating systems, Phys. Rep. 286, 53 (1997)

    1997

  6. [13]

    Dev and M

    K. Dev and M. Gleiser, Anisotropic Stars II: Stabil- ity, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 35, 1435 (2003), arXiv:gr- qc/0303077 [gr-qc]

    2003

  7. [14]

    M. L. Pattersons and A. Sulaksono, Mass correction and deformation of slowly rotating anisotropic neutron stars based on Hartle-Thorne formalism, European Physical Journal C 81, 698 (2021). 8

    2021

  8. [15]

    D. Deb, B. Mukhopadhyay, and F. Weber, Effects of Anisotropy on Strongly Magnetized Neutron and Strange Quark Stars in General Relativity, Astrophys. J.922, 149 (2021), arXiv:2108.12436 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Dev and M

    K. Dev and M. Gleiser, Anisotropic Stars: Exact Solutions, arXiv e-prints , astro-ph/0012265 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0012265 [astro-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Roupas, Secondary component of gravitational-wave signal GW190814 as an anisotropic neutron star, Astro- phys

    Z. Roupas, Secondary component of gravitational-wave signal GW190814 as an anisotropic neutron star, Astro- phys. Space Sci. 366, 9 (2021), arXiv:2007.10679 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Rahmansyah, A

    A. Rahmansyah, A. Sulaksono, A. B. Wahidin, and A. M. Setiawan, Anisotropic neutron stars with hyperons: im- plication of the recent nuclear matter data and observa- tions of neutron stars, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 769 (2020)

    2020

  12. [19]

    Rizaldy, A

    R. Rizaldy, A. R. Alfarasyi, A. Sulaksono, and T. Sumaryada, Neutron-star deformation due to anisotropic momentum distribution of neutron-star mat- ter, Phys. Rev. C 100, 055804 (2019)

    2019

  13. [20]

    Biswas and S

    B. Biswas and S. Bose, Tidal deformability of an anisotropic compact star: Implications of GW170817, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104002 (2019), arXiv:1903.04956 [gr- qc]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    R. L. Bowers and E. P. T. Liang, Anisotropic Spheres in General Relativity, Astrophys. J. 188, 657 (1974)

    1974

  15. [22]

    H. O. Silva, C. F. B. Macedo, E. Berti, and L. C. B. Crispino, Slowly rotating anisotropic neutron stars in general relativity and scalar-tensor theory, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 145008 (2015), arXiv:1411.6286 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, I-Love-Q anisotropically: Uni- versal relations for compact stars with scalar pres- sure anisotropy, Phys. Rev. D 91, 123008 (2015), arXiv:1503.02726 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Rahmansyah and A

    A. Rahmansyah and A. Sulaksono, Recent multimes- senger constraints and the anisotropic neutron star, Phys. Rev. C 104, 065805 (2021)

    2021

  18. [25]

    H. C. Das, I -Love -C relation for an anisotropic neutron star, Phys. Rev. D 106, 103518 (2022), arXiv:2208.12566 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [26]

    S. S. Bayin, Anisotropic fluid spheres in general relativ- ity, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1262 (1982)

    1982

  20. [27]

    Bondi, Anisotropic spheres in general relativity, Mon

    H. Bondi, Anisotropic spheres in general relativity, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 259, 365 (1992)

    1992

  21. [28]

    M. K. Gokhroo and A. L. Mehra, Anisotropic spheres with variable energy density in general relativity, General Relativity and Gravitation 26, 75 (1994)

    1994

  22. [29]

    Hillebrandt and K

    W. Hillebrandt and K. O. Steinmetz, Anisotropic neu- tron star models: stability against radial and nonradial pulsations., Astron. & Astrophys. 53, 283 (1976)

    1976

  23. [30]

    Heintzmann and W

    H. Heintzmann and W. Hillebrandt, Neutron stars with an anisotropic equation of state: mass, redshift and sta- bility., Astron. & Astrophys. 38, 51 (1975)

    1975

  24. [31]

    K. D. Krori, P. Borgohain, and R. Devi, Some ex- act anisotropic solutions in general relativity., Canadian Journal of Physics 62, 239 (1984)

    1984

  25. [32]

    S. D. Maharaj and P. Mafa Takisa, Regular models with quadratic equation of state, General Relativity and Grav- itation 44, 1419 (2012), arXiv:1301.1418 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  26. [33]

    L. K. Patel and N. P. Mehta, An Exact Model of an Anisotropic Relativistic Sphere, Australian Journal of Physics 48, 635 (1995)

    1995

  27. [35]

    Raposo, P

    G. Raposo, P. Pani, M. Bezares, C. Palenzuela, and V. Cardoso, Anisotropic stars as ultracompact objects in general relativity, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104072 (2019), arXiv:1811.07917 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. B. Hartle, Slowly Rotating Relativistic Stars. I. Equa- tions of Structure, Astrophys. J. 150, 1005 (1967)

    1967

  29. [37]

    J. B. Hartle and K. S. Thorne, Slowly Rotating Relativis- tic Stars. II. Models for Neutron Stars and Supermassive Stars, Astrophys. J. 153, 807 (1968)

    1968

  30. [38]

    Danielewicz and J

    P. Danielewicz and J. Lee, Symmetry energy I: Semi-infinite matter, Nucl. Phys. A 818, 36 (2009), arXiv:0807.3743 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Typel, G

    S. Typel, G. R¨ opke, T. Kl¨ ahn, D. Blaschke, and H. H. Wolter, Composition and thermodynamics of nuclear matter with light clusters, Phys. Rev. C 81, 015803 (2010), arXiv:0908.2344 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  32. [40]

    T. Kojo, G. Baym, and T. Hatsuda, Implications of NICER for Neutron Star Matter: The QHC21 Equation of State, Astrophys. J. 934, 46 (2022), arXiv:2111.11919 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    (31) This relation reproduces our results for different anisotropy models with an error of less than 3%

    for the normalized moment of inertia: INS M3≈ 1.019 C + 0.225 C2 − 0.0038 C3 + 2.3× 10−5 C4 . (31) This relation reproduces our results for different anisotropy models with an error of less than 3%. The binding energy of the star, defined as the energy required to assemble a s...

  34. [42]

    L. M. Becerra, E. A. Becerra-Vergara, and F. D. Lora- Clavijo, Slowly rotating anisotropic neutron stars with a parametrized equation of state, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103004 (2024), arXiv:2410.06316 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Beltracchi and C

    P. Beltracchi and C. Posada, Slowly rotating anisotropic relativistic stars, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024052 (2024), arXiv:2403.08250 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    L. M. Becerra, E. A. Becerra-Vergara, and F. D. Lora- Clavijo, Realistic anisotropic neutron stars: Pressure ef- fects, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043025 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Misner, U

    C. Misner, U. Misner, K. Thorne, J. Wheeler, and U. Thorne, Gravitation, Science - Gravity (W. H. Free- man, 1973)

    1973

  38. [46]

    O. M. Pimentel, F. D. Lora-Clavijo, and G. A. Gonz´ alez, The energy-momentum tensor for a dissipative fluid in general relativity, General Relativity and Gravitation48, 124 (2016), arXiv:1604.01318 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    E. A. Becerra-Vergara, S. Mojica, F. D. Lora-Clavijo, and A. Cruz-Osorio, Anisotropic quark stars with an interact- ing quark equation of state, Phys. Rev. D 100, 103006 (2019), arXiv:1903.03047 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, P. S. Ray, R. M. Ludlam, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, C. L. Baker, A. V. Bilous, D. Chakrabarty, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Hard- ing, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, S. M. Morsink, and T. E. Strohmayer, A NICER View of PSR J0030+0451: Millisecond...

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, PSR J0952-0607: The Fastest and Heav- iest Known Galactic Neutron Star, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L17 (2022), arXiv:2207.05124 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    M. F. O’Boyle, C. Markakis, N. Stergioulas, and J. S. Read, Parametrized equation of state for neutron star matter with continuous sound speed, Phys. Rev. D 102, 083027 (2020), arXiv:2008.03342 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Su´ arez-Urango, L

    D. Su´ arez-Urango, L. M. Becerra, J. Ospino, and L. A. N´ u˜ nez, The physical acceptability conditions and the strategies to obtain anisotropic compact ob- jects, European Physical Journal C 83, 1018 (2023), arXiv:2307.06257 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Guzm´ an, F

    F. Guzm´ an, F. Lora-Clavijo, and M. Morales, Revis- iting spherically symmetric relativistic hydrodynamics, 9 Revista mexicana de f´ ısica E58, 84 (2012)

    2012

  45. [53]

    Arroyo-Ch´ avez, A

    G. Arroyo-Ch´ avez, A. Cruz-Osorio, F. D. Lora-Clavijo, C. Campuzano Vargas, and L. A. Garc´ ıa Mora, Neutron and quark stars: constraining the parameters for simple EoS using the GW170817, Astrophys. Space Sci. 365, 43 (2020), arXiv:2002.08879 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    D. G. Ravenhall and C. J. Pethick, Neutron Star Mo- ments of Inertia, Astrophys. J. 424, 846 (1994)

    1994

  47. [55]

    Breu and L

    C. Breu and L. Rezzolla, Maximum mass, moment of inertia and compactness of relativistic stars, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 459, 646 (2016), arXiv:1601.06083 [gr- qc]

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Neutron Star Structure and the Equation of State, Astrophys. J.550, 426 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0002232 [astro-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Cadogan and E

    T. Cadogan and E. Poisson, Self-gravitating anisotropic fluids. I: context and overview, General Relativity and Gravitation 56, 118 (2024), arXiv:2406.03185 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.