Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 156 references

Effect of Dark matter and $\sigma$-cut potential on radial and non-radial oscillation modes in neutron stars

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a dark-matter admixture from neutron decay raises the f and p1 oscillation frequencies of neutron stars at 1.4 solar masses and at maximum mass, relative to standard relativistic mean-field matter.

desk verdict Solid but modest asteroseismology extension with a fixable abstract/reporting gap; deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13227 v2 pith:7VQ3Q4WG submitted 2025-07-17 astro-ph.HE hep-phnucl-th

Prashant Thakur , Ishfaq Ahmad Rather , Y. Lim This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEhep-phnucl-th
keywords neutronstarsdarkmatterrelativisticmean-fieldequationofstatesigma-cutpotentialf-modeoscillationsradialgravitational-waveasteroseismologyquasi-universalrelations
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 tries to establish that two microphysical variations of the relativistic mean-field equation of state—a logarithmic $\sigma$-cut potential and a dark-matter component sourced by a neutron decay channel into hidden particles—leave distinct, calculable imprints on how neutron stars vibrate. It computes the fundamental ($f$) and first pressure ($p_1$) non-radial modes in full general relativity, plus the ten lowest radial modes, for soft and stiff versions of each model. Its central result is that the dark-matter-admixed model yields the highest frequencies: 1.85 kHz for $f$ at $1.4\,M_\odot$ in the soft case, 2.43 kHz at the maximum-mass configuration, and 6.52 kHz for $p_1$ at $1.4\,M_\odot$. This matters because gravitational-wave asteroseismology could then distinguish an ordinary neutron star from one carrying a small dark-matter fraction, and the paper's quasi-universal frequency-density fits would remain usable without knowing which composition is present.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the neutron-decay-anomaly dark-matter model: a spin-1/2 dark fermion $\chi$ produced by $n \to \chi + \phi$, held in chemical equilibrium with neutrons through $\mu_\chi = \mu_n$, and given a repulsive vector self-interaction $G_\chi$ that controls how much the dark component softens the equation of state. Around it sits the comparison machinery: the logarithmic $\sigma$-cut potential $U_{\rm cut}(\sigma)=\alpha\ln[1+\exp(\beta(g_\sigma\sigma/m_N-f_s))]$, which stiffens matter above saturation, and the full general-relativistic oscillation formalism—even-parity Regge-Wheeler metric perturbations matched to the Zerilli equation for non-radial modes, and the Sturm-Liouville radial perturbation equations. These pieces translate a microphysical assumption into concrete numbers for frequencies and damping times.

What would settle it

The most direct check is a decisive neutron-lifetime experiment: if the beam-bottle discrepancy is resolved by systematic effects and no dark decay branch $n\to\chi+\phi$ is found, the model's dark-matter source disappears. Alternatively, a measured $f$-mode frequency for a neutron star near $1.4\,M_\odot$ that falls at or below the ordinary NL prediction of about 1.81 kHz would contradict the predicted upward shift, since the soft NL DM model places it at 1.85 kHz with a specific radius of 11.97 km.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that dark matter from the neutron decay anomaly model systematically raises oscillation frequencies relative to both the standard NL model and the NL-$\sigma$-cut modification. The mechanism is compactness: dark matter adds energy density with comparatively little pressure, so the same mass sits in a smaller radius, and denser stars have stronger restoring forces and therefore higher $f$ and $p_1$ frequencies. In the soft parameterization the $f$-mode frequency at $1.4\,M_\odot$ moves from 1.81 kHz (NL) to 1.85 kHz (NL DM), and at maximum mass from 2.34 kHz to 2.43 kHz, while the $p_1$ mode at $1.4\,M_\odot$ moves from 5.99 kHz to 6.52 kHz. The $\sigma$-cut potential acts in the opposite direction at canonical mass, lowering compactness and giving longer damping times (the stiff NL-$\sigma$ $p_1$ damping time reaches 10.176 s). Radial modes show a parallel signature: the large frequency separation becomes nearly constant at about 5.0 kHz for the stiff dark-matter equation of state, whereas the ordinary models show a decreasing separation, so the frequency-spacing pattern itself carries the microphysical fingerprint.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dark fermions produced by neutron decay establish chemical equilibrium with the neutrons ($\mu_\chi=\mu_n$) and behave as a single fluid inside the star; if equilibrium is not reached within the star's lifetime, or the decay channel does not exist, the modeled dark-matter fraction and the frequency shifts that follow from it are not realized.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, a measured $f$-mode frequency at $1.4\,M_\odot$ above the ordinary-matter baseline is a possible dark-matter signature, since compactness, not composition, is the immediate driver.
  • The fitted quasi-universal relation $f/{\rm kHz}\approx0.473+36.706\sqrt{M/R^3}$, with relative errors below about 2.5% across all three compositions, can be used to estimate mean density from a detected frequency without knowing whether dark matter is present.
  • The damping-time fit $R^4/(M^3\tau)\approx0.097-0.469(M/R)+0.586(M/R)^2$ keeps errors below 5% over most of the compactness range, so damping times remain predictable even with a dark admixture.
  • Radial large frequency separation carries equation-of-state information: the stiff NL DM model gives a nearly constant $\Delta\nu\approx5.0$ kHz, while NL and NL-$\sigma$ models show a decreasing separation, providing a diagnostic for the crust-core transition.
  • Gravitational-wave emission estimates place $f$- and $p_1$-mode signals from Galactic neutron stars within reach of current and next-generation detectors, while extragalactic sources at about 15 Mpc would require unrealistically large emission energies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the chemical-equilibrium assumption is relaxed, the dark-matter fraction becomes a free, time-dependent quantity; computing the capture and thermalization timescales for $\chi$ inside the star would tell whether the predicted frequency shifts survive in realistic astrophysical settings.
  • The same upward-frequency trend might appear in two-fluid dark-matter treatments where dark matter is only gravitationally bound; checking those against the single-fluid curves would test how much of the shift comes from equilibrium versus merely added mass.
  • The near-constant radial large separation seen in the stiff NL DM model could be calibrated as a dark-matter abundance indicator if future post-merger or supernova oscillation signals resolve multiple radial overtones.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies neutron star oscillation modes for three relativistic mean-field EoS variants (NL, NL-σ cut, and NL DM) using a soft and a stiff parameter set per model inherited from the authors' earlier Bayesian analysis. The authors compute TOV structure, non-radial f- and p1-mode frequencies and damping times in full general relativity, radial oscillation frequencies and eigenfunctions, quasi-universal f-mode relations, and detectability estimates for current and third-generation GW detectors. The central reported result is that adding dark matter via the neutron decay anomaly model increases f- and p1-mode frequencies at 1.4 M_sun and at the maximum-mass configuration compared with the NL and NL-σ models.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful extension of asteroseismology to EoSs with σ-cut potentials and DM admixtures. Its strengths include the use of full GR perturbation equations with standard boundary conditions, the explicit comparison with the PSR+GW+NICER credible band, and the presentation of new empirical fits (Eqs. IV.3 and IV.5) with residual panels. The prior parameter sets from Ref. [99] give the calculations a concrete Bayesian motivation, and the out-of-sample comparison with the earlier IR-1 and IR-2 fits is a genuinely useful test of quasi-universality. The main limitations are an overstated abstract claim about the p1 mode at maximum mass, an unexamined chemical-equilibrium assumption for the DM sector, and an unsupported 'perfectly describe' statement for the prior fits.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV.3, Table III] The abstract states that p1-mode frequencies at both 1.4 M_sun and the maximum-mass configuration are higher in the NL DM model than in the NL and NL-σ models, but Section IV.3 reports that at Mmax the soft NL-σ cut model has the highest p1 frequency (6.452 kHz), followed by the soft NL DM model (6.390 kHz). This is a direct contradiction of the abstract's headline claim; please revise the abstract to the correct ordering at maximum mass.
  2. [Section II.3, Eq. (II.13)] The NL DM calculation rests on the assumption μ_χ = μ_n stated in Eq. (II.13), justified by the assertion that dark fermions 'will reach thermal equilibrium with the surrounding NS matter.' No timescale or transport calculation is provided, and the implied DM fraction is not compared with the observational upper limits cited in the same section (f_χ ≲ 5% from Ref. [33] and f_χ ≲ 20% from Ref. [34]). Since the DM fraction controls the softening, compactness, and hence the claimed frequency shifts, please either add an equilibration estimate, state explicitly that Eq. (II.13) is a limiting-case assumption, and report the DM fraction for the soft and stiff NL DM configurations.
  3. [Section IV.2, Fig. 4] The claim that the prior fits IR-1 and IR-2 'perfectly describe' the current data including dark matter is not supported by the evidence shown: the lower panel of Fig. 4 plots relative residuals only for 'Our Fit', not for IR-1 or IR-2. To make the out-of-sample universality claim testable, please add residual curves or a table of maximum deviations for IR-1 and IR-2, and replace the word 'perfectly' with a quantitative statement.
  4. [Section IV, Table I and surrounding text] The assertion that the two extremal parameter points (soft and stiff) per model 'cover the entire allowed parameter range' is an assumption about the Bayesian posterior of Ref. [99] that is not demonstrated in this manuscript. Since subsequent claims about 'the full spectrum of possibilities' depend on this coverage, please justify or qualify this statement, for example by showing posterior ranges or explicitly stating that only two representative points from the posterior are used.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and multiple locations] The phrase 'qusi-universal' should be 'quasi-universal' (it appears in the abstract and in Section IV.2).
  2. [Section III.2 and Fig. 8 caption] The Fig. 8 caption defines η(r) as Δr/r, but Eq. (III.11) defines η = ΔP/P; the caption should be corrected to 'pressure perturbation η = ΔP/P'.
  3. [Section IV.5 and Section V] The text refers to the extragalactic source distance as the 'Virgo cluster' in one place and the 'Vela Cluster' in another; please unify the terminology.
  4. [Table II and Table V] The damping time for NL-σ cut stiff at 1.4 M_sun is 0.240 s in Table II but 0.242 s in the 15 Mpc block of Table V; the inconsistency should be fixed.
  5. [Section IV.2] The sentence 'Our EoS models perfectly lie within this credible band' should be rephrased as 'Our EoS models lie within this credible band' to avoid overstatement.
  6. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption's phrase 'Each plot's left (right) panel shows the soft (stiff) EoS' is confusing because the figure has two main panels (EoS and MR) rather than four. Please clarify which panel corresponds to soft and which to stiff in each subplot.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the f- and p1-mode frequencies are computed from fixed EoS inputs, and the self-cited fits are used as out-of-sample comparators, not fitted to the target data.

full rationale

The paper's central frequency claims are outputs of the GR perturbation system (Eqs. III.4–III.10 and III.11–III.15) applied to EoSs built from the parameters in Table I; none of those equations is calibrated to reproduce the reported f- or p1-mode frequencies. The sigma-cut and DM parameters (fs and G_chi) are taken from the authors' earlier Bayesian analysis [99], and the IR-1/IR-2 relations from [119]; both are self-citations, but they supply fixed inputs rather than being fitted to the current oscillation results. In particular, the claim that IR-1 and IR-2 'perfectly describe' the DM-included data is an out-of-sample comparison: those fits were obtained from hyperon/Delta and phase-transition EoSs, not from the NL DM EoS, so agreement is a falsifiable empirical finding rather than a construction. Equations (IV.3) and (IV.5) are explicitly new fits to the present data, labeled 'Our Fit', with relative-error panels; fitting one's own data and presenting the fit as a fit is not a prediction, and the paper does not call them predictions. The chemical equilibrium assumption mu_chi = mu_n (Eq. II.13), asserted without a timescale or transport calculation, is a physical premise that determines the DM fraction; it is a robustness/correctness concern, not a circular step, because the mode frequencies are derived from, not identical to, this premise. One internal inconsistency should be noted for correctness: the abstract's statement that p1-mode frequencies at maximum mass are highest in NL DM is contradicted by Section IV.3, where the soft NL-sigma cut model has 6.452 kHz and NL DM soft has 6.390 kHz; this is a reporting error, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 3 invented entities

Most load-bearing ingredients are inputs from prior literature: the RMF couplings, σ-cut parameters, dark matter model, and perturbation formalism. The paper's own free parameters are the soft and stiff choices inherited from the Bayesian analysis in ref [99], plus the adopted dark matter mass and coupling. No new entity is introduced by this paper; the χ, φ, and V particles come from the neutron decay anomaly model. The main unexplained assumptions are the chemical equilibrium between dark matter and neutrons, the equivalence of adiabatic and equilibrium sound speeds, and the claim that two extremal equations of state represent the full model range.

free parameters (8)
  • NL soft RMF coupling set (gσ, gω, gρ, B, C, ξ, Λω) = 8.92, 10.76, 10.23, 0.00424, -0.00477, 0.00074, 0.038
    Calibrated in the authors' previous Bayesian study (ref [99]) against nuclear and astrophysical data; these fixed inputs determine all EoS and oscillation results.
  • NL stiff RMF coupling set (gσ, gω, gρ, B, C, ξ, Λω) = 8.67, 10.35, 10.22, 0.00465, -0.00486, 0.00028, 0.041
    Calibrated in the authors' previous Bayesian study (ref [99]); the stiff counterpart of the NL model.
  • NL-σ cut soft set plus f_s = gσ=8.40, gω=9.79, gρ=10.60, B=0.00564, C=-0.00456, ξ=0.00063, Λω=0.072, f_s=0.57
    f_s is the dimensionless σ-cut onset parameter from ref [99]; it controls where the σ-cut stiffening activates.
  • NL-σ cut stiff set plus f_s = gσ=8.44, gω=9.87, gρ=10.18, B=0.00547, C=-0.00475, ξ=0.0029, Λω=0.049, f_s=0.50
    Stiff counterpart of the σ-cut model; f_s again taken from the prior Bayesian analysis.
  • NL DM soft set plus Gχ = gσ=8.30, gω=9.57, gρ=10.77, B=0.00610, C=-0.00477, ξ=0.0012, Λω=0.099, Gχ=420 fm²
    Gχ is the DM self-interaction strength (gV/mV)^2; values from the previous Bayesian analysis and tidal deformability constraints.
  • NL DM stiff set plus Gχ = gσ=8.56, gω=10.14, gρ=10.20, B=0.00486, C=-0.00470, ξ=0.0003, Λω=0.047, Gχ=767 fm²
    Stiff counterpart of the DM-admixed model; Gχ from the prior analysis.
  • Dark fermion mass mχ = 938 MeV
    Chosen inside the allowed window 937.993 < mχ+mφ < 939.565 MeV for the neutron decay anomaly model; a model input, not derived here.
  • σ-cut potential parameter β = 120
    Adopted from Maslov et al. (ref [30]); fixed in the definition of U_cut(σ), not fitted in this paper.
assumptions (10)
  • standard math General relativity and the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations describe the static, spherically symmetric neutron star structure
    Used throughout Section IV.1 to construct mass-radius relations; standard.
  • standard math Even-parity Regge-Wheeler perturbations plus the Zerilli equation describe non-radial oscillation modes
    Section III.1, Eqs. (III.1)-(III.10); standard formalism.
  • standard math Radial oscillations form a Sturm-Liouville eigenvalue problem with the given center and surface boundary conditions
    Section III.2, Eqs. (III.11)-(III.15); standard.
  • domain assumption The matter is cold, fully catalyzed, beta-equilibrated, and charge neutral, with electrons and muons
    Section II.1; standard for isolated mature neutron stars.
  • domain assumption The adiabatic sound speed in the perturbation equations can be replaced by the equilibrium sound speed dP/dE
    Explicit approximation in Section III.1 after Eq. (III.7) and in Eq. (III.13); unquantified for non-barotropic perturbations.
  • domain assumption The BPS crust matched to the RMF core at about 120 MeV/fm³ is thermodynamically consistent and has negligible effect on the oscillation modes
    Section IV.1; no unified-EoS comparison is shown to support the negligible-impact claim.
  • domain assumption Dark matter from neutron decay reaches chemical equilibrium with neutrons and is treated as a single fluid
    Eq. (II.13) and Section II.3; assumes μχ=μn and that φ escapes.
  • domain assumption The neutron decay anomaly channel n→χ+φ exists with the stated mass window
    Section II.3, Eq. (II.12); speculative beyond-standard-model physics adopted from refs [60,106].
  • domain assumption Dark matter self-interactions are mediated by a vector boson with strength Gχ=(gV/mV)²
    Eqs. (II.14)-(II.15); adopted from ref [61].
  • ad hoc to paper Two extremal parameter points (soft and stiff) per model cover the full allowed range of each model
    Stated in Section IV; inherited from the Bayesian analysis in ref [99], but not demonstrated inside this paper.
invented entities (3)
  • Dark fermion χ (spin-1/2, mχ=938 MeV)
    purpose: Product of the beyond-standard-model neutron decay n→χ+φ; accumulates in the neutron star and modifies the EoS, compactness, and oscillation frequencies.
    Adopted from the neutron decay anomaly literature (refs [106,117]); no direct laboratory or astronomical detection is provided by this paper, and no new falsifiable handle is added beyond the neutron star oscillation predictions.
  • Light dark boson φ
    purpose: Companion particle in the neutron decay channel; assumed to escape the star so only χ contributes to the dark matter fluid.
    Part of the adopted model; the escape assumption is asserted in Section II.3 without a transport calculation.
  • Dark vector mediator Vμ
    purpose: Provides repulsive dark matter self-interaction entering the energy density through Gχ nχ².
    Introduced in Eq. (II.14) following ref [61]; only the effective combination Gχ enters, constrained indirectly by tidal deformability and core-cusp bounds, with no direct evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effect of Dark matter and $\sigma$-cut potential on radial and non-radial oscillation modes in neutron stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7VQ3Q4WG

@misc{pith2026250713227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effect of Dark matter and $\sigma$-cut potential on radial and non-radial oscillation modes in neutron stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7VQ3Q4WG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13227}
}
abstract

We study the mesonic nonlinear (NL) interaction equation of state (EoS) employing the relativistic mean-field model and investigate the effect of $\sigma$-cut potential (NL-$\sigma$ cut) and dark matter (NL DM) on the non-radial and radial oscillation modes of neutron stars. For NL-$\sigma$ cut, we include the $\sigma$-cut potential $U_{cut} (\sigma)$ to study its effect. For the dark matter, we use the neutron decay anomaly model. For each model, we investigate two extreme EoSs, stiff and soft, that cover the entire allowed parameter range from the given model, consistent with the current astrophysical constraints. The EoS and the stellar properties, such as mass and radius, are calculated, and the effect of $\sigma$-cut and DM is discussed. Both non-radial and radial oscillation modes are computed in the general relativistic framework. We study the non-radial $f$ and $p_1$ mode frequency, damping time, and some qusi-universal relations connecting the frequencies of the $f$-mode to the average density and compactness. The analysis showed that the $f$ and $p_1$ mode frequencies at both 1.4~$M_{\odot}$ and the maximum mass configuration are higher in the NL DM model compared to the NL and NL-$\sigma$ models. The consistent alignment between our prior parameterizations and current calculations strongly supports the existence of quasi-universal relations that hold true irrespective of the particular matter components involved. For the radial oscillations, we compute 10 lowest-order modes ($f$, $p$), study the radial perturbations as well as the large frequency separation with NL-$\sigma$ cut and NL DM EoS, showing that the microphysics involved in the NS EoS is imprinted on the frequency separation between different nodes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13227 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Left: Energy density and pressure variation for mesonic nonlinear interaction (NL), a modified sigma cut potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. represents the f-mode frequencies as a function of neutron star mass for NL, NL-σ cut, and NL DM EoS. Solid lines indicate soft EoSs, while dashed lines denote stiff EoSs. Among the soft EoSs, the NL DM model exhibits the highest frequency of 1.85 kHz at the canonical mass of 1.4 M⊙, exceeding the frequencies of NL and NL-σ cut, as shown in Table II. This increase in frequency may be attributed to the presence of da… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: presents the normalized damping time of the f-mode, given by R4/(M3 τ ), as a function of the com￾pactness M/R, allowing direct comparison between the models used in this work and existing empirical fits. As compactness increases, the normalized damping time de￾creases…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Top: Non-radial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Left: The radial displacement perturbation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Left: The radial pressure perturbation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Frequency difference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

156 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [99]

    Ferrari, G

    V. Ferrari, G. Miniutti, and J. A. Pons, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 342, 629 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0210581

    arXiv 2003

  2. [33]

    Lim, C.-H

    Y. Lim, C.-H. Lee, and Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. D 97, 023010 (2018), arXiv:1708.01364 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [34]

    S. K. Dhiman, R. Kumar, and B. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. C 76, 045801 (2007), arXiv:0709.4081 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2007

  4. [1]

    A more detailed treatment of these effects could lead to a better understanding of the transition between low- and high-density regimes

    Refinement of the EoS: Further improvements in the microphysical modeling of the σ-cut potential and dark matter interactions are needed. A more detailed treatment of these effects could lead to a better understanding of the transition between low- and high-density regimes

  5. [2]

    Extended Mode Analysis: In addition to the f - mode, it would be beneficial to study other non- radial modes (e.g., g and r-modes) and assess their potential as diagnostic tools for the internal struc- ture of neutron stars. In particular, g-modes are highly sensitive to the internal composition and stratification of neutron stars, making them valu- able ...

  6. [3]

    Observational Constraints: With the advent of next- generation gravitational wave detectors and mul- timessenger observations, future work would aim to incorporate observational constraints to narrow down the model parameter space

  7. [4]

    Addressing these aspects will not only refine our the- oretical models but also enhance the prospects of using NS asteroseismology as a powerful probe of dense matter physics

    Numerical Simulations: Studying the oscillation modes for a finite temperature EoS with σ-cut and DM along with the advancing numerical simulations to include the effects of rotation and magnetic fields will be crucial, as these factors are expected to influence the oscillation spectra and overall stability of neutron stars. Addressing these aspects will ...

    2024

  8. [5]

    In Eq. IV.6, the quality factor is given by Q = πf τ, where τ is the damping time, f is the oscillation frequency of either the f -mode or p1-mode, and Sn represents the 15 spectral noise density. We compute the gravitational wave energy EGW for both the canonical and maximum mass configurations for the f -mode. We examine two categories of gravitational ...

Show all 156 references
  1. [6]

    B. P. Abbott and R. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018)

    2018

  2. [8]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. , Science 340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Fonseca et al., Astrophys

    E. Fonseca et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, L12 (2021), arXiv:2104.00880 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [10]

    B. P. Abbott and R. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  5. [11]

    B. P. Abbott et al.(LIGO Scientific), Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L12 (2017), arXiv:1710.05833 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [12]

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

    2019

  7. [13]

    Typel, G

    S. Typel, G. Ropke, T. Klahn, D. Blaschke, and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C 81, 015803 (2010), arXiv:0908.2344 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [14]

    G. A. Lalazissis, J. K¨ onig, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 55, 540–543 (1997)

    1997

  9. [15]

    T. E. Riley et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L27 (2021), arXiv:2105.06980 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [16]

    M. C. Miller et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters 918, L28 (2021). 18

    2021

  11. [17]

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

    2019

  12. [18]

    Y. Lim, J. W. Holt, and R. J. Stahulak, Phys. Rev. C 100, 035802 (2019), arXiv:1810.10992 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Salmi et al

    T. Salmi et al. , Astrophys. J. 974, 294 (2024), arXiv:2406.14466 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [20]

    A. J. Dittmann et al., (2024), arXiv:2406.14467 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Choudhury et al., Astrophys

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

    2024

  16. [22]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Lourenco, J. S. Sa Martins, A. Delfino, J. R. Stone, and P. D. Stevenson, Phys. Rev. C 85, 035201 (2012), arXiv:1202.3902 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Lim and J

    Y. Lim and J. W. Holt, Physical Review Letters 121, 062701 (2018)

    2018

  18. [24]

    G. A. Lalazissis, J. Konig, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 55, 540–543 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9607039

    1997 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Lim and J

    Y. Lim and J. W. Holt, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 209 (2019), arXiv:1902.05502 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Lim and A

    Y. Lim and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 109, 035801 (2024), arXiv:2307.04063 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [27]

    N. K. Glendenning and S. A. Moszkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2414–2417 (1991)

    1991

  22. [28]

    C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Physical Review C 64 (2001)

    2001

  23. [29]

    Pais and C

    H. Pais and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. C94, 015808 (2016), arXiv:1607.05899 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [30]

    K. A. Maslov, E. E. Kolomeitsev, and D. N. Voskresen- sky, Phys. Rev. C 92, 052801 (2015), arXiv:1508.03771 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [31]

    W.-h. Long, J. Meng, N. Van Giai, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 69, 034319 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0311031

    2004 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Chen and J

    W.-C. Chen and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 90, 044305 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    B. K. Pradhan, D. Chatterjee, R. Gandhi, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A 1030, 122578 (2023), arXiv:2209.12657 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. Roberts, and J. W. T. Hessels, Nature (London) 467, 1081–1083 (2010), arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    F. Ma, W. Guo, and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. C 105, 015807 (2022), arXiv:2202.03001 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Ivanytskyi, V

    O. Ivanytskyi, V. Sagun, and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063028 (2020), arXiv:1910.09925 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    D. R. Karkevandi, S. Shakeri, V. Sagun, and O. Ivanyt- skyi, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023001 (2022), arXiv:2109.03801 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Rutherford, G

    N. Rutherford, G. Raaijmakers, C. Prescod-Weinstein, and A. Watts, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103051 (2023), arXiv:2208.03282 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ciarcelluti and F

    P. Ciarcelluti and F. Sandin, Phys. Lett. B 695, 19–21 (2011), arXiv:1005.0857 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A. Das, T. Malik, and A. C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123034 (2022), arXiv:2011.01318 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    R. S. Lynch, J. Boyles, S. M. Ransom, I. H. Stairs, D. R. Lorimer, M. A. McLaughlin, J. W. T. Hessels, V. M. Kaspi, V. I. Kondratiev, A. M. Archibald, A. Berndsen, R. F. Cardoso, A. Cherry, C. R. Epstein, C. Karako- Argaman, C. A. McPhee, T. Pennucci, M. S. E. Roberts, K. Stov...

    2013

  36. [44]

    Goldman, R

    I. Goldman, R. N. Mohapatra, S. Nussinov, D. Rosen- baum, and V. Teplitz, Phys. Lett. B 725, 200–207 (2013), arXiv:1305.6908 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    S. L. Pitz and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043050 (2025), arXiv:2408.13157 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kini et al., Mon

    Y. Kini et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 535, 1507– 1525 (2024), arXiv:2405.10717 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Nelson, S

    A. Nelson, S. Reddy, and D. Zhou, JCAP 07, 012 (2019), arXiv:1803.03266 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    C. H. Lenzi, M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, L. L. Lopes, and D. P. Menezes, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 266 (2023), arXiv:2212.12615 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Giangrandi, V

    E. Giangrandi, V. Sagun, O. Ivanytskyi, C. Providˆ encia, and T. Dietrich, Astrophys. J. 953, 115 (2023), arXiv:2209.10905 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Shakeri and D

    S. Shakeri and D. R. Karkevandi, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043029 (2024), arXiv:2210.17308 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Singh, A

    D. Singh, A. Gupta, E. Berti, S. Reddy, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083037 (2023), arXiv:2210.15739 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Thakur, T

    P. Thakur, T. Malik, A. Das, T. K. Jha, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043030 (2024), arXiv:2308.00650 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Dutra, C

    M. Dutra, C. H. Lenzi, and O. Louren¸ co, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517, 4265–4274 (2022), arXiv:2211.10263 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Z. Miao, Y. Zhu, A. Li, and F. Huang, Astrophys. J. 936, 69 (2022), arXiv:2204.05560 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Hong and Z

    B. Hong and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023002 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    A. Das, T. Malik, and A. C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. D 99, 043016 (2019), arXiv:1807.10013 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    C. V. Flores, C. H. Lenzi, M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, and J. D. V. Arba˜ nil, Phys. Rev. D 109, 083021 (2024), arXiv:2402.12600 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    H. C. Das, A. Kumar, B. Kumar, S. Kumar Biswal, T. Nakatsukasa, A. Li, and S. K. Patra, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 495, 4893–4903 (2020), arXiv:2002.00594 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Collier, D

    M. Collier, D. Croon, and R. K. Leane, Phys. Rev. D 106, 123027 (2022), arXiv:2205.15337 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    G. Baym, D. H. Beck, P. Geltenbort, and J. Shelton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 061801 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    H. R. R¨ uter, V. Sagun, W. Tichy, and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124080 (2023), arXiv:2301.03568 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Buras-Stubbs and I

    Z. Buras-Stubbs and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043043 (2024), arXiv:2402.19238 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Hajkarim, J

    F. Hajkarim, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and L. Tolos, (2024), arXiv:2412.04585 [hep-ph]

    2024

  56. [64]

    Issifu, P

    A. Issifu, P. Thakur, F. M. da Silva, K. D. Marquez, D. P. Menezes, M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, and T. Frederico, (2024), arXiv:2412.17946 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Bastero-Gil, T

    M. Bastero-Gil, T. Huertas-Roldan, and D. Santos, (2024), arXiv:2403.08666 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Chirenti, G

    C. Chirenti, G. H. de Souza, and W. Kastaun, Phys. Rev. D 91, 044034 (2015), arXiv:1501.02970 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Shirke, S

    S. Shirke, S. Ghosh, D. Chatterjee, L. Sagun- ski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, JCAP 12, 008 (2023), arXiv:2305.05664 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    T. F. Motta, P. A. M. Guichon, and A. W. Thomas, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1844020 (2018), arXiv:1806.00903 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Shirke, B

    S. Shirke, B. K. Pradhan, D. Chatterjee, L. Sagun- ski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063025 (2024), arXiv:2403.18740 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Andersson and K

    N. Andersson and K. D. Kokkotas, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 299, 1059–1068 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9711088

    1998 arXiv

  63. [71]

    H. K. Lau, P. T. Leung, and L. M. Lin, Astrophys. J. 714, 1234–1238 (2010), arXiv:0911.0131 [gr-qc]. 19

    2010 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Providˆ encia, T

    C. Providˆ encia, T. Malik, M. B. Albino, and M. Ferreira, (2023), arXiv:2307.05086 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Sotani, Phys

    H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103021 (2020), arXiv:2011.03167 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Evans et al., (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    M. Evans et al., (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Punturo et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 194002 (2010)

    M. Punturo et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  68. [76]

    Kalogera et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2111.06990 (2021), arXiv:2111.06990 [gr-qc]

    V. Kalogera et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2111.06990 (2021), arXiv:2111.06990 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Abac et al., (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    A. Abac et al., (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Chirenti, M

    C. Chirenti, M. C. Miller, T. Strohmayer, and J. Camp, The Astrophys. J. Lett. 884, L16 (2019)

    2019

  71. [79]

    Hinderer et al., Phys

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

    2016

  72. [80]

    Tsang, J

    D. Tsang, J. S. Read, T. Hinderer, A. L. Piro, and R. Bondarescu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 011102 (2012)

    2012

  73. [81]

    Chirenti, R

    C. Chirenti, R. Gold, and M. C. Miller, The Astrophys- ical Journal 837, 67 (2017)

    2017

  74. [82]

    Passamonti, M

    A. Passamonti, M. Bruni, L. Gualtieri, A. Nagar, and C. F. Sopuerta, Phys. Rev. D 73, 084010 (2006)

    2006

  75. [83]

    Passamonti, N

    A. Passamonti, N. Stergioulas, and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 75, 084038 (2007)

    2007

  76. [84]

    I. A. Rather, K. D. Marquez, B. C. Backes, G. Pan- otopoulos, and I. Lopes, JCAP 05, 130 (2024), arXiv:2401.07789 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 061104 (2019)

    2019

  78. [86]

    Abbott et al., Prog

    R. Abbott et al., Prog. Th. Exp. Phys. 2022 (2022), 10.1093/ptep/ptac073

    2022 doi

  79. [87]

    Kokkotas, K. D. and Ruoff, J., A&A 366, 565–572 (2001)

    2001

  80. [88]

    Gondek, P

    D. Gondek, P. Haensel, and J. L. Zdunik, A&A 325, 217–227 (1997)

    1997

  81. [89]

    I. A. Rather, K. D. Marquez, G. Panotopoulos, and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 107, 123022 (2023), arXiv:2303.11006 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Rel. 2, 2 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9909058

    1999 arXiv

  83. [91]

    H.-B. Li, Y. Gao, L. Shao, R.-X. Xu, and R. Xu, MNRAS 516, 6172–6179 (2022)

    2022

  84. [92]

    S. Sen, S. Kumar, A. Kunjipurayil, P. Routaray, S. Ghosh, P. J. Kalita, T. Zhao, and B. Kumar, Galaxies 11, 60 (2023), arXiv:2205.02076 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Sagun, G

    V. Sagun, G. Panotopoulos, and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063025 (2020)

    2020

  86. [94]

    Panotopoulos and I

    G. Panotopoulos and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083001 (2018)

    2018

  87. [95]

    Routaray, H

    P. Routaray, H. C. Das, S. Sen, B. Kumar, G. Pan- otopoulos, and T. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103039 (2023), arXiv:2211.12808 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  88. [96]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. 874, 163 (2019), arXiv:1902.01557 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Benhar, V

    O. Benhar, V. Ferrari, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D 70, 124015 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0407529

    2004 arXiv

  90. [98]

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

    2014

  91. [100]

    P. C. Mock and P. C. Joss, The Astrophysical Journal 500, 374 (1998)

    1998

  92. [101]

    K. D. Kokkotas, T. A. Apostolatos, and N. Anders- son, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 320, 307–315 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/9901072

    2001 arXiv

  93. [102]

    Malik, M

    T. Malik, M. Ferreira, M. B. Albino, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103018 (2023), arXiv:2301.08169 [nucl- th]

    2023 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo,, KA- GRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J. 966, 137 (2024), arXiv:2210.10931 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Kunjipurayil, T

    A. Kunjipurayil, T. Zhao, B. Kumar, B. K. Agrawal, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063005 (2022), arXiv:2205.02081 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  96. [105]

    Thakur, T

    P. Thakur, T. Malik, A. Das, T. K. Jha, B. K. Sharma, and C. Providˆ encia, Astron. Astrophys. 697, A220 (2025), arXiv:2408.03780 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  97. [106]

    F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz, and G. Shen, Phys. Rev. C 82, 055803 (2010), arXiv:1008.3030 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  98. [107]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, S. S. Avancini, B. V. Carlson, A. Delfino, D. P. Menezes, C. Providˆ encia, S. Typel, and J. R. Stone, Phys. Rev. C 90, 055203 (2014), arXiv:1405.3633 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  99. [108]

    Serebrov et al., Phys

    A. Serebrov et al., Phys. Lett. B 605, 72–78 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0408009

    2005 arXiv

  100. [109]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Hu, and P. Liu, Phys. Rev. C 97, 015805 (2018), arXiv:1801.01984 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  101. [110]

    Thakur, B

    P. Thakur, B. K. Sharma, A. Ashika, S. Srivishnu, and T. K. Jha, Phys. Rev. C 109, 025805 (2024)

    2024

  102. [111]

    Czarnecki, W

    A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 202002 (2018)

    2018

  103. [112]

    Fornal and B

    B. Fornal and B. Grinstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 191801 (2018)

    2018

  104. [113]

    Mampe, L

    W. Mampe, L. N. Bondarenko, V. I. Morozov, Y. N. Panin, and A. I. Fomin, JETP Lett. 57, 82–87 (1993)

    1993

  105. [114]

    Byrne and P

    J. Byrne and P. G. Dawber, EPL 33, 187 (1996)

    1996

  106. [115]

    Pichlmaier, V

    A. Pichlmaier, V. Varlamov, K. Schreckenbach, and P. Geltenbort, Phys. Lett. B 693, 221–226 (2010)

    2010

  107. [116]

    Steyerl, J

    A. Steyerl, J. M. Pendlebury, C. Kaufman, S. S. Malik, and A. M. Desai, Phys. Rev. C 85, 065503 (2012)

    2012

  108. [117]

    Arzumanov, L

    S. Arzumanov, L. Bondarenko, S. Chernyavsky, P. Gel- tenbort, V. Morozov, V. V. Nesvizhevsky, Y. Panin, and A. Strepetov, Phys. Lett. B 745, 79–89 (2015)

    2015

  109. [118]

    R. W. Pattie, Jr. et al., Science 360, 627–632 (2018), arXiv:1707.01817 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  110. [119]

    A. T. Yue, M. S. Dewey, D. M. Gilliam, G. L. Greene, A. B. Laptev, J. S. Nico, W. M. Snow, and F. E. Wietfeldt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 222501 (2013), arXiv:1309.2623 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  111. [120]

    F. J. Zerilli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 737–738 (1970)

    1970

  112. [121]

    Husain, T

    W. Husain, T. F. Motta, and A. W. Thomas, JCAP 10, 028 (2022), arXiv:2203.02758 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  113. [122]

    Tang et al., Phys

    Z. Tang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 022505 (2018), arXiv:1802.01595 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  114. [123]

    Fornal and B

    B. Fornal and B. Grinstein, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 35, 2030019 (2020), arXiv:2007.13931 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  115. [124]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  116. [125]

    I. A. Rather, K. D. Marquez, P. Thakur, and O. Louren¸ co, (2024), arXiv:2412.12002 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  117. [126]

    G. Baym, C. Pethick, and P. Sutherland, Astrophys. J. 170, 299–317 (1971)

    1971

  118. [127]

    Lindblom and S

    L. Lindblom and S. L. Detweiler, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 53, 73–92 (1983)

    1983

  119. [128]

    J. M. Bardeen, K. S. Thorne, and D. W. Meltzer, As- trophys. J. 145, 505 (1966)

    1966

  120. [129]

    Chanmugam, Astrophys

    G. Chanmugam, Astrophys. J. 217, 799–808 (1977)

    1977

  121. [130]

    T. E. Riley et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters 918, L27 (2021)

    2021

  122. [131]

    Doroshenko, V

    V. Doroshenko, V. Suleimanov, G. P¨ uhlhofer, and A. Santangelo, Nature Astronomy 6, 1444–1451 (2022). 20

    2022

  123. [132]

    S. R. Mohanty, U. Mali, H. C. Das, B. Kumar, and P. Landry, (2024), arXiv:2410.16689 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  124. [133]

    J. W. Negele and D. Vautherin, Nucl. Phys. A 207, 298–320 (1973)

    1973

  125. [134]

    I. A. Rather, A. A. Usmani, and S. K. Patra, Nucl. Phys. A 1010, 122189 (2021), arXiv:2009.12613 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  126. [135]

    Fortin, C

    M. Fortin, C. Providencia, A. R. Raduta, F. Gulminelli, J. L. Zdunik, P. Haensel, and M. Bejger, Phys. Rev. C 94, 035804 (2016), arXiv:1604.01944 [astro-ph.SR]

    2016 arXiv

  127. [136]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55, 364–373 (1939)

    1939

  128. [137]

    (IV.4) This extended fit, shown as the cyan curve in Fig

    to include higher-order terms, resulting in the fol- lowing expression: R4 M 3τ ≈ 0.112 − 0.53 M R + 0.628 M R 2 . (IV.4) This extended fit, shown as the cyan curve in Fig. 5, attempts to capture the nonlinear dependence of the normalized damping time on stellar compactness. I...

  129. [138]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. 55, 374–381 (1939)

    1939

  130. [139]

    P. J. Kalita, P. Routaray, K. Singha, B. Kumar, and B. K. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. C 110, 045807 (2024)

    2024

  131. [140]

    Wen, B.-A

    D.-H. Wen, B.-A. Li, H.-Y. Chen, and N.-B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 99, 045806 (2019), arXiv:1901.03779 [gr- qc]

    2019 arXiv

  132. [141]

    B. K. Pradhan and D. Chatterjee, Phys. Rev. C 103, 035810 (2021), arXiv:2011.02204 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  133. [142]

    G. F. Burgio, V. Ferrari, L. Gualtieri, and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. D 84, 044017 (2011)

    2011

  134. [143]

    Lioutas and N

    G. Lioutas and N. Stergioulas, Gen. Rel. Grav. 50, 12 (2018), arXiv:1709.10067 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  135. [144]

    Benhar, E

    O. Benhar, E. Berti, and V. Ferrari, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 310, 797–803 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9901037

    1999 arXiv

  136. [145]

    B. K. Pradhan, D. Chatterjee, M. Lanoye, and P. Jaiku- mar, Phys. Rev. C 106, 015805 (2022), arXiv:2203.03141 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  137. [146]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 88, 023009 (2013), arXiv:1303.1528 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  138. [147]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Science 341, 365–368 (2013), arXiv:1302.4499 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  139. [148]

    Thakur, S

    P. Thakur, S. Chatterjee, K. K. Nath, and R. Mallick, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103045 (2024), arXiv:2407.12601 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  140. [149]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Astrophys. J. 550, 426 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0002232

    2001 arXiv

  141. [150]

    N. K. Glendenning, Compact stars: Nuclear physics, particle physics, and general relativity(1997)

    1997

  142. [151]

    Haensel, A

    P. Haensel, A. Potekhin, and D. Yakovlev, Neutron Stars 1: Equation of State and Structure, Astrophysics and Space Science Library (Springer New York, 2006)

    2006

  143. [152]

    Sun, Z.-Y

    T.-T. Sun, Z.-Y. Zheng, H. Chen, G. F. Burgio, and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. D 103, 103003 (2021), arXiv:2101.07515 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  144. [153]

    V´ asquez Flores and G

    C. V´ asquez Flores and G. Lugones, JCAP08, 046 (2018), arXiv:1804.05155 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  145. [154]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  146. [155]

    B. P. Abbott et al.(LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 044001 (2017), arXiv:1607.08697 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  147. [156]

    Gholami, I

    H. Gholami, I. A. Rather, M. Hofmann, M. Buballa, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 111, 103034 (2025), arXiv:2411.04064 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  148. [157]

    Christian, I

    J.-E. Christian, I. A. Rather, H. Gholami, and M. Hof- mann, (2025), arXiv:2503.13626 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.