Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 137 references

Quintessence-Chameleon transitions in anisotropic Kiselev model of neutron stars

T0 review · 5 major / 4 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 A chameleon scalar field screened in dense matter still alters neutron star structure through envelope anisotropies.

desk verdict A genuinely new package of numbers, but the scalar profile is chosen, not solved, and the paper contradicts itself on Mmax and rcrit. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04744 v1 pith:JW44Z7LV submitted 2025-08-06 gr-qc

M. V. Pradosh Keshav , V. Jithesh , Kenath Arun (Christ University , Bangalore) This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5585A15 PACS 04.40.Dg04.50.Kd95.36.+x
keywords KiselevmetricChameleonscalarNeutronstarCompactobjectsDarkenergyAnisotropicpressureTidaldeformabilityScreeningradius
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 argues that an environmentally screened chameleon scalar field can coexist with neutron star observations while leaving measurable traces. Coupling the field to a Kiselev-type anisotropic metric turns radial scalar gradients into pressure anisotropy $\Delta p \propto 1/r$ and a scalar energy density that acts mainly in the stellar envelope, with a critical screening radius $r_{\rm crit}\sim0.03\,{\rm km}$ deep in the core. Solving the modified TOV equations gives maximum mass $M_{\max}\approx1.75\pm0.28\,M_\odot$, radius $R\approx11.35\pm1.11\,{\rm km}$, and a tidal deformability suppressed by about 86 percent relative to general relativity at $1.4\,M_\odot$, all within current observational bounds. The authors present percent-level deviations in compactness and tidal response as falsifiable signatures of short-range scalar forces for next-generation gravitational-wave surveys.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the screening transition embodied in the density-dependent effective scalar mass $m_\phi(\rho)$ and the critical radius $r_{\rm crit}$ that separates the screened core from the unscreened envelope. With the power-law profile, the scalar gradient produces $\Delta p=\phi_0^2/(4r)$, matching the Kiselev anisotropic fluid's tangential pressure deficit for the quintessence case $w_q=-2/3$; the Kiselev normalization $a$ is fixed by the scalar amplitude $\phi_0$ and coupling $\beta$, and $r_{\rm crit}$ follows from balancing anisotropic stress against matter couplings. The modified TOV equations then translate this gradient into mass-radius and tidal observables.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the 1.4 solar mass tidal deformability from a future binary neutron star event that is incompatible with $\Lambda_{\rm ST}/\Lambda_{\rm GR}\approx0.137$ (for example, a measured ratio close to unity at percent-level precision) would falsify the central claim, as would a full numerical solution of the Klein-Gordon equation in a realistic neutron star interior that fails to produce $\Delta p\propto1/r$ in the envelope.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a chameleon scalar field with density-dependent effective mass $m_\phi\propto\rho^{1/2}$, non-minimally coupled through $f(\phi)=\exp(3\beta\phi/M_{\rm Pl})$, can replace the uniform dark-energy component of the Kiselev metric and thereby generate neutron star anisotropies dynamically rather than by hand. Under the adopted power-law profile, $\Delta p=p_t-p_r=(\partial_r\phi)^2=\phi_0^2/(4r)$, so the anisotropy and scalar energy density scale as $1/r$. Integrating the modified TOV equations yields stable configurations with $M_{\max}\approx1.75\pm0.28\,M_\odot$ and $R\approx11.35\pm1.11\,{\rm km}$, and a tidal deformability ratio $\Lambda_{\rm ST}/\Lambda_{\

Load-bearing premise

Every quantitative result is carried by the assumed power-law scalar profile inside the star, and the paper itself concedes in Section 9 that nonlinear effects may render this approximation less accurate in the innermost regions; if the true solution of the scalar field equation differs from the ansatz there, the predicted anisotropy, mass-radius curve, and tidal suppression all change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stable scalarized neutron stars exist with $M_{\max}\approx1.75\pm0.28\,M_\odot$ and $R\approx11.35\pm1.11\,{\rm km}$, satisfying the pulsar mass bound and merger radius bounds while screening fifth forces in the core.
  • At $1.4\,M_\odot$ the dimensionless tidal deformability is suppressed to $\Lambda_{\rm ST}/\Lambda_{\rm GR}\sim0.137$, an 86 percent suppression, yet remains inside the allowed gravitational-wave band, so a future precise measurement can test it.
  • Stronger scalar coupling $\beta$ increases the scalar energy density, counteracts anisotropic pressure support, and lowers the maximum mass; large couplings are disfavored by the observed high-mass pulsars.
  • Deviations from general relativity are confined outside $r_{\rm crit}\sim0.03\,{\rm km}$, so the star's core stays GR-like while the envelope carries percent-level compactness and tidal anomalies.
  • Percent-level shifts in compactness and tidal response constitute falsifiable targets for next-generation gravitational-wave and multimessenger surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the 86 percent tidal suppression is computed from an assumed power-law scalar profile, replacing it with a numerical solution of the Klein-Gordon equation and a tabulated nuclear equation of state could shift both the critical radius and the predicted suppression; this is the natural first check.
  • The model implies a correlation not tested in the paper: as $\beta$ grows, lower maximum mass should accompany smaller tidal deformability, which could help break degeneracies with the nuclear equation of state in future waveform analyses.
  • The same screened-unscreened transition, if real, would imprint environment-dependent effects outside stars; an editorial extension is to cross-correlate low-redshift supernova distance residuals with sky positions of compact objects hosting unscreened scalar profiles.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a chameleon-like scalar field coupled to a Kiselev-type metric as a mechanism for generating pressure anisotropies in neutron stars. The authors introduce a scalar profile ansatz, use it to fix the Kiselev parameter and a screening radius, integrate modified TOV equations with a polytropic EoS, and report maximum masses, radii, and tidal deformabilities that they claim are consistent with NICER and LIGO/Virgo observations. The central claim is that environmentally screened scalar fields can produce observable anisotropies without violating current bounds.

Significance. If the claimed mechanism were demonstrated from the chameleon field equations, the work could offer a new bridge between dark-energy scalar fields and neutron-star observables, with falsifiable predictions for tidal deformability and compactness. The paper identifies a genuine gap: phenomenological anisotropy models in neutron stars often lack a first-principles scalar-field origin. However, the quantitative results are not derived from the chameleon field dynamics; they follow from an imposed power-law profile whose relation to the chameleon mechanism is not established. The paper also contains internal contradictions in the central numbers (M_max, r_crit, GR baseline). The correct assessment is that the central claim is currently unsupported rather than confirmed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 6, Eq. (48); Section 5; Appendix C] The load-bearing scalar profile is assumed, not derived. Section 5 solves the Klein-Gordon equation and obtains Yukawa-type solutions (Eqs. 38-41), but Section 6 abruptly switches to a power-law ansatz ϕ(r)=ϕ0 r^{-1/2} (Eq. 48). The displayed derivative in Eq. (48), ∂_rϕ = ϕ0/2 r^{-1/2}, actually corresponds to ϕ ∝ r^{1/2}, not r^{-1/2}, and the following expression (∂_rϕ)^2 = ϕ0^2/4 r is inconsistent with the stated r^{-1/2} profile (which would give r^{-3}). This ambiguity propagates into ρ_φ, Δp, the Kiselev parameter a, and r_crit. More importantly, the ansatz is not a chameleon solution: the chameleon effective mass m_φ ∝ ρ^{1/2} should pin φ near a density-dependent minimum with suppressed gradients in the core, whereas this profile makes ∂_rϕ grow toward the center, requiring an ad hoc cutoff r_cut (Appendix C). Section 9 concedes the approximation is inaccurate in the innermost r
  2. [Section 2, Eqs. (7)-(8); Section 6, Eq. (44)] There is a sign inconsistency in the anisotropy. From Eqs. (7)-(8), with the usual fluid identification T^r_r = p_r and T^θ_θ = p_t, one obtains p_t - p_r = -ω(ϕ)(∂_rϕ)^2, which is negative for a canonical kinetic term (ω>0). Section 6 instead defines Δp = p_t - p_r = (∂_rϕ)^2 ≥ 0 and inserts it with a positive sign into the modified TOV equation (Eq. 44). The physical interpretation of the scalar field's anisotropic stress is therefore opposite to what is used in the structure equations, undermining the claimed stiffening of the EoS in the core.
  3. [Section 6, Eq. (52); Appendix C; Abstract] The critical screening radius r_crit is defined self-referentially: Eq. (52) gives r^{(0)}_crit = sqrt(a M_Pl/(β r_crit)), i.e., the initial guess depends on the quantity being computed. The iterative procedure then converges to a value that is not a solution of the field equations. Moreover, the reported values are mutually inconsistent: Section 6 states an initial estimate of 0.02894 km, Appendix C reports a converged r_crit ∼ 0.3 km, and the abstract quotes r_crit ∼ 0.03 km. These numbers differ by an order of magnitude, and since r_crit is central to the screening narrative, this is not a mere typo.
  4. [Section 6, tidal deformability paragraph] The tidal deformability result Λ_ST/Λ_GR = 0.137 is not a prediction of the model. The paper states 'we have assumed a constant Love number k_2 = 0.1' immediately before reporting the tidal ratio. If the Love number is fixed a priori rather than computed from the scalar-modified stellar perturbation equations, then the 86% suppression quoted in the abstract is an input assumption, not an output of the scalar-tensor dynamics. The claim of a falsifiable tidal signature is therefore unsupported.
  5. [Section 6 vs Section 9] The central mass and radius values are contradictory across the manuscript. Section 6 reports M_max = 1.837 M⊙ for β = 10^-4, M_max = 2.425 M⊙ for β ≤ 10^-6, and a GR baseline M_GR^max ≈ 2.16 M⊙; Section 9 reports M_max ≈ 1.75 ± 0.280 M⊙ and a GR limit of 1.76 M⊙. The abstract quotes 1.75 M⊙. Similarly, R = 7.775 km for the 2.425 M⊙ configuration conflicts with the R ≈ 11.35 ± 1.11 km quoted in the abstract and Section 9. A paper whose central numbers fail to cohere cannot be accepted as a reliable quantitative study. Additionally, the polytropic constants K and γ are calibrated so that the model reproduces the NICER radius bound (Section 6: 'we calibrate K and γ such that ... radii consistent with ... R_1.4 ≲ 11.9 km'); the subsequent claim of observational consistency is thus circular.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains many garbled passages and corrupted figure captions, especially around Figures 1-4 and in Appendix B. The numerical values in the text are not legible in several places. This alone would require a thorough editorial revision before resubmission.
  2. [Section 6, units] The switch between natural, geometric, and CGS units is not handled consistently. For example, scalar amplitudes ϕ0 and masses m_eff are quoted in eV in one place and in 'geometric units' elsewhere, without clear conversion factors, making the parameter choices difficult to reproduce.
  3. [Eq. (41)] The 'full solution' to the scalar equation is written as ϕ(r) = ϕ_∞ + K_{...}/r - ...; the K_{...}/r term does not vanish as r → ∞, which conflicts with the stated asymptotic flatness condition ϕ → ϕ_∞. This is a technical inconsistency in the derivation that should be clarified.
  4. [Section 5, after Eq. (38)] The text states that the homogeneous solution's divergence as r → 0 violates finite-energy requirements, so C1 = 0. Yet the power-law ansatz used later also diverges at r = 0 (unless the cutoff in Appendix C is invoked). The two treatments are not reconciled.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline mass-radius and tidal results are built from an imposed scalar ansatz and a polytropic EoS tuned to the same NICER/LIGO bounds they are later said to satisfy; r_crit is defined self-referentially.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 6, Eq. (48); also Eqs. (49)-(52) and Section 9]
    "The scalar field is assumed to follow an ansatz used in [102]. For instance, one may assume ϕ(r) = ϕ0 r^{-1/2}, where ϕ0 is fixed by boundary conditions at the neutron star surface so that its radial derivative is: ∂rϕ = ϕ0/(2 r^{1/2}) =⇒ (∂rϕ)^2 = ϕ0^2/(4r)."

    This imposed profile is the source of every scalar-sector input: Eq. (49) immediately gives ρφ ∝ r^-1 and Δp = ρφ/2 ∝ r^-1; Eq. (50) fixes the Kiselev parameter a; Eq. (52) fixes the screening radius r_crit. Thus the abstract's claim that the model 'shows' Δp ∝ r^-1 is a restatement of the chosen ansatz, not a result obtained by solving the chameleon Klein-Gordon equation (Eq. 33). Section 9 itself concedes that in the innermost high-curvature regions nonlinear effects may make this ansatz inaccurate, so the advertised environmentally screened mechanism is not independently derived.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 6, after Eq. (47); validation quoted in Section 9]
    "To effectively absorb the outer-layer (crustal) behavior, we tune K and γ such that the resulting M–R curve respects the tidal deformability and radius constraints from NICER and LIGO–Virgo observations [...] we calibrate the constants K and γ such that the resulting neutron star configurations with M = 1.4 M⊙ yield radii consistent with current observational bounds (R1.4 ≲ 11.9 km) as reported by Capano et al. [72]."

    The polytropic parameters K and γ are explicitly fitted so that the M–R curve respects the NICER/LIGO radius and tidal constraints. The same constraints are then cited as validation: 'The maximum-mass scalarized configuration achieves Mmax ≈ 1.75±0.280 M⊙ with radius R ≈ 11.35±1.11 km, consistent with conservative upper and lower bounds from multimessenger observations.' The radius consistency, in particular, is a consequence of the calibration condition folded into the model, not an independent prediction of the scalar-tensor dynamics.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Section 6, Eq. (52); Appendix C]
    "This yields the critical screening radius (in geometric units) through a perturbative expansion: r_crit^(0) = sqrt(a M_Pl/(β r_crit)), r_crit^(1) = r_crit^(0)[1 + m_eff r_crit^(0)/2]."

    The equation defining the screening radius contains r_crit on both sides of the definition of r_crit^(0). The iterative procedure in Appendix C therefore refines a fixed point of a self-referential expression rather than determining r_crit from an independent physical scale. Since r_crit controls where the scalar field is 'effectively turned off' and hence where anisotropies act, the resulting screening scale is an input to the construction, not a derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not rely on a load-bearing self-citation chain; the imported modified TOV equations [68] are standard and the numerical integration is a genuine computation. The circularity is structural. The scalar sector is fixed by the ansatz ϕ(r)=ϕ0 r^{-1/2} (Eq. 48), which immediately fixes Δp∝r^-1, ρφ∝r^-1, the Kiselev parameter a, and the screening radius. The mass-radius curve is then obtained with a polytropic EoS whose K and γ are tuned specifically to match NICER/LIGO radius and tidal bounds, and the same bounds are quoted as the model's consistency check. The tidal ratio Λ_ST/Λ_GR=0.137 is also not a computed Love number from the scalar-field perturbation equations, as k2 is fixed by hand to 0.1, although the ratio is at least partially determined by the compactness outputs. Section 9's own limitation statement—that the power-law ansatz may fail in the innermost high-curvature regions—reinforces that the headline anisotropy mechanism is an assumed profile rather than a solved chameleon configuration. These are not merely self-citations or benchmark issues; the central quantitative claims reduce, by the paper's own equations, to the chosen scalar profile and the calibrated EoS. Score 6 reflects one or more predictions reducing by construction while the TOV integration itself remains an independent numerical step.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's quantitative claims rest on at least seven hand-set or fitted numbers. The most consequential is the EoS calibration: K and γ are tuned to reproduce the same observational radius bound that the paper later cites as evidence of consistency. The scalar amplitude φ0 is a free dial that moves M_max between 1.75 and 2.425 M⊙. The tidal deformability comparison is controlled by the assumed k_2 = 0.1 rather than by dynamics. The screening radius is fixed by an iterative self-referential equation. The paper also assumes the exponential coupling, the quartic potential, the r^(-1/2) profile, and the imported TOV equations without independent evidence. No genuinely new entity is introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • φ0 (scalar amplitude) = 10^-3 M_Pl (cosmological); larger values used to reach 2.425 M⊙
    Hand set; fixes Δp, a, M_max, and r_crit.
  • β (scalar-matter coupling) = scanned 10^-2, 10^-4, 10^-6, 10^-8
    Free theory parameter; β = 10^-2 gives M_max below the NICER bound.
  • V0 (potential strength) = scan range garbled in text; upper end is dark energy density in km^-2
    Scanned; below the lower end the tidal effect drops below 1%.
  • m0 (bare scalar mass) = 10^-6 eV and 10^-24 eV
    Two hand-picked cases (heavy and ultra-light).
  • K, γ (polytropic EoS) = K = 800, γ = 2.2 in geometric units
    Calibrated so the 1.4 M⊙ radius matches the Capano et al. bound (R_1.4 ≲ 11.9 km).
  • k2 (tidal Love number) = 0.1
    Fixed 'as a representative value'; the Λ ratio then reduces to a compactness ratio.
  • r_cut (central scalar cutoff) = not quantified
    Ad hoc regularization below which the scalar field is turned off (Appendix C).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Modified TOV equations from ref. [68] are the correct hydrostatic equilibrium for this scalar-tensor theory.
    Imported without derivation; the anisotropic mass term and ρ_φ couplings are not re-derived from the scalar-tensor action in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Power-law scalar profile φ(r) = φ0 r^(-1/2) holds throughout the stellar interior.
    Assumed to reproduce Kiselev scaling (w_q = -2/3); Section 9 concedes nonlinear effects may invalidate it in the core; Appendix C adds an ad hoc cutoff.
  • ad hoc to paper Non-minimal coupling f(φ) = exp(3βφ/M_Pl).
    Adopted in Appendix A to cancel divergent terms arising from the scalar potential, not derived from observations or first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper Quartic scalar potential V(φ) = V0 φ^4.
    Chosen by hand; with φ ∝ r^(-1/2) it gives V ∝ r^(-2), while the text claims ρ_φ ∝ r^(-1), an unresolved scaling inconsistency.
  • ad hoc to paper The metric-function extremum r_ph = sqrt(2M/a) equals the chameleon screening radius.
    A geometric feature (the photon sphere of the Kiselev metric, Section 2) is identified with the density-dependent screening scale without derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper Love number k_2 remains constant at 0.1 in the presence of the scalar field.
    Assumed as representative; inconsistent with a claimed 86% change in tidal deformability if k_2 were actually affected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quintessence-Chameleon transitions in anisotropic Kiselev model of neutron stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JW44Z7LV

@misc{pith2026250804744,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quintessence-Chameleon transitions in anisotropic Kiselev model of neutron stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JW44Z7LV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04744}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate a chameleon scalar field dynamically interacting with a Kiselev-type metric, where the static anisotropic fluid part of the metric is replaced by a density-dependent scalar field non-minimally coupled to curvature. This construction enables a transition from screened behavior in high-density regions-where the scalar acquires an effective mass m_\phi\propto\rho^1/2-to unscreened quintessence dynamics at large scales, characterized by a critical screening radius r_\rm crit\propto m_\phi^-1. By solving the modified TOV equations under spherical symmetry, we show that radial scalar gradients \partial_r\phi induce pressure anisotropies \Delta p\propto r^-1 in neutron star envelopes, while deviations from general relativity are suppressed deep in the core r<r_\rm crit\sim 0.03\,\mathrm{km} without destabilizing it. We further demonstrate that increasing the scalar coupling \beta enhances scalar energy density, which counteracts anisotropic pressure support and slightly reduces the maximum mass. The resulting (stable) configurations yield maximum mass M_max\approx 1.75\pm0.280\,M_\odot and radii R\approx11.35\pm1.11\,\mathrm{km}, consistent with conservative upper and lower bounds from multimessenger observations. Scalar contributions induce a modest suppression in the dimensionless tidal deformability \Lambda_\rm ST\Lambda_\rm GR\sim0.137 at 1.4\,M_\odot i.e, 86% suppression compared to typical GR star, falling well within the LIGO/Virgo range 70\lesssim\Lambda_1.4\lesssim 580. These results demonstrate that environmentally screened scalar fields can dynamically generate anisotropies and modify neutron star structure without violating current astrophysical bounds. In particular, percent-level deviations in compactness and tidal response provide falsifiable signatures of short-range scalar forces, offering a novel target for next-generation GW and multimessenger surveys.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. , Astrophysical Journal 517 , 565 (1999)

    1999

  2. [2]

    A. G. Riess et al. , Astronomical Journal 116 , 1009 (1998)

    1998

  3. [3]

    Collaboration, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2020)

    P. Collaboration, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    W. Yang, E. D. Valentino, S. Pan, Y. Wu and J. Lu, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2020), doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3914

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3914 2020

  5. [5]

    Huterer, Physical Review D 65 , 063001 (2001), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.063001

    D. Huterer, Physical Review D 65 , 063001 (2001), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.063001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.65.063001 2001

  6. [6]

    K. Arun, S. Gudennavar, A. Prasad and C. Sivaram, Advances in Space Research 61 , 567 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    Del Popolo and M

    A. Del Popolo and M. Le Delliou, Galaxies 5 , 17 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    N. E. Mavromatos, Lambda-cdm model and small-scale-cosmology “crisis”: from astrophysical explanations to new fundamental physics models , in The Fifteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting: On Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Astrophysics, and Relativistic Field Theories (In 3 Volumes)\/ , (2022), pp. 1114--1121

    2022

Show all 137 references
  1. [9]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Reviews of modern physics 75 , 559 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov and P. J. Steinhardt, Physical Review D 63 , 103510 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Physical Review D 69 , 044026 (2004)

    2004

  4. [12]

    Khoury, Classical and Quantum Gravity 30 , 214004 (2013)

    J. Khoury, Classical and Quantum Gravity 30 , 214004 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    A. Dima, M. Bezares and E. Barausse, Physical Review D (2021), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.084017

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Brax, A.-C

    P. Brax, A.-C. Davis and R. Jha, Physical Review D 95 , 083514 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    K. Li, M. Arif, D. G. Cory, R. Haun, B. Heacock, M. G. Huber, J. Nsofini, D. A. Pushin, P. Saggu, D. Sarenac et al. , Physical Review D 93 , 062001 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Vlachos, E

    C. Vlachos, E. Papantonopoulos and K. Destounis, Physical Review D (2021), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.044042

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    X. Qin, S. Chen, Z. Zhang and J. Jing, The Astrophysical Journal 938 (2022), doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8f49

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Cañate, J

    P. Cañate, J. Sultana and D. Kazanas, Classical and Quantum Gravity 38 (2021), doi:10.1088/1361-6382/abf97f

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    de Cesare and R

    M. de Cesare and R. Oliveri, Physical Review D (2022), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.044033

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Davis, R

    A. Davis, R. Gregory, R. Jha and J. Muir, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014 , 033 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Ottoni, J

    T. Ottoni, J. G. Coelho, R. CR de Lima, J. P. Pereira and J. A. Rueda, The European Physical Journal C 84 , 1337 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Maurya, K

    S. Maurya, K. N. Singh, M. Govender, A. Errehymy and F. Tello-Ortiz, The European Physical Journal C 81 , 729 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Barausse, C

    E. Barausse, C. Palenzuela, M. Ponce and L. Lehner, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 87 , 081506 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Herdeiro, E

    C. Herdeiro, E. Radu, H. O. Silva, T. Sotiriou and N. Yunes, Physical review letters 126 1 , 011103 (2020), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.011103

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    L. K. Wong, A. Davis and R. Gregory, Physical Review D (2019), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024010

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    H. O. Silva, A. Coates, F. M. Ramazano g lu and T. P. Sotiriou, Physical Review D 105 , 024046 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    T. S. Koivisto, E. N. Saridakis and N. Tamanini, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015 , 047 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    K. D. Krori and J. Barua, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 8 , 508 (1975), doi:10.1088/0305-4470/8/4/012

    1975 doi

  21. [29]

    Abbas, S

    G. Abbas, S. Nazeer and M. Meraj, Astrophysics and Space Science 354 , 449 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Abbas, S

    G. Abbas, S. Qaisar and A. Jawad, Astrophysics and Space Science 359 , 57 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Abbas, D

    G. Abbas, D. Momeni, M. Aamir Ali, R. Myrzakulov and S. Qaisar, Astrophysics and Space Science 357 , 1 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Zubair, G

    M. Zubair, G. Abbas and I. Noureen, Astrophysics and Space Science 361 , 8 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Abbas, M

    G. Abbas, M. Zubair and G. Mustafa, Astrophysics and Space Science 358 , 26 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Wyman, Physical Review D 24 , 839 (1981)

    M. Wyman, Physical Review D 24 , 839 (1981)

    1981

  27. [35]

    Jetzer and D

    P. Jetzer and D. Scialom, Physics Letters A 169 , 12 (1992)

    1992

  28. [36]

    Kodama, Physical Review D 18 , 3529 (1978)

    T. Kodama, Physical Review D 18 , 3529 (1978)

    1978

  29. [37]

    Kodama, L

    T. Kodama, L. De Oliveira and F. d. Santos, Physical Review D 19 , 3576 (1979)

    1979

  30. [38]

    Antoniadis, P

    J. Antoniadis, P. C. Freire, N. Wex, T. M. Tauris, R. S. Lynch, M. H. Van Kerkwijk, M. Kramer, C. Bassa, V. S. Dhillon, T. Driebe et al. , Science 340 , 1233232 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Torii, K

    T. Torii, K. Maeda and M. Narita, Physical Review D 59 , 104002 (1999)

    1999

  32. [40]

    Nazar, M

    H. Nazar, M. Azam, G. Abbas, R. Ahmed and R. Naeem, Chinese Physics C 47 , 035109 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Sakstein, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 88 , 124013 (2013)

    J. Sakstein, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 88 , 124013 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Sakstein, B

    J. Sakstein, B. Jain and V. Vikram, International Journal of Modern Physics D 23 , 1442002 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Sakstein, Physical Review D 92 , 124045 (2015)

    J. Sakstein, Physical Review D 92 , 124045 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    R. L. Bowers and E. Liang, Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 188, p. 657 (1974) 188 , 657 (1974)

    1974

  37. [45]

    Galeev, R

    R. Galeev, R. Muharlyamov, A. A. Starobinsky, S. V. Sushkov and M. S. Volkov, Physical Review D 103 , 104015 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Kennedy, L

    J. Kennedy, L. Lombriser and A. Taylor, Physical Review D 98 , 044051 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    S. L. Liebling and C. Palenzuela, Living Reviews in Relativity 26 , 1 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 , 9545 (2004)

    2004

  41. [49]

    Kulkarni, E

    M. Kulkarni, E. Visbal, G. L. Bryan and X. Li, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 941 , L18 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Ventagli, P

    G. Ventagli, P. G. Fernandes, A. Maselli, A. Padilla and T. P. Sotiriou, Physical Review D 111 , 024001 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    V. V. Kiselev, Classical and Quantum Gravity 20 , 1187 (2003)

    2003

  44. [52]

    Heydarzade and F

    Y. Heydarzade and F. Darabi, Physics Letters B 771 , 365 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Konoplya, Physics Letters B 795 , 1 (2019)

    R. Konoplya, Physics Letters B 795 , 1 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    Zeng, H.-Q

    X.-X. Zeng, H.-Q. Zhang and H. Zhang, The European Physical Journal C 80 , 1 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Abdujabbarov, B

    A. Abdujabbarov, B. Toshmatov, Z. Stuchl \' k and B. Ahmedov, International Journal of Modern Physics D 26 , 1750051 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Chen and J

    S. Chen and J. Jing, Classical and Quantum Gravity 22 , 4651 (2005)

    2005

  49. [57]

    Zhang and Y

    Y. Zhang and Y. Gui, Classical and Quantum Gravity 23 , 6141 (2006)

    2006

  50. [58]

    B. B. Thomas, M. Saleh and T. C. Kofane, General Relativity and Gravitation 44 , 2181 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    Saleh, B

    M. Saleh, B. B. Thomas and T. C. Kofane, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 57 , 2640 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Toledo and V

    J. Toledo and V. Bezerra, The European Physical Journal C 79 , 110 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    J. d. M. Toledo and V. Bezerra, International Journal of Modern Physics D 28 , 1950023 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    M. F. Sakti, A. Suroso and F. P. Zen, Annals of Physics 413 , 168062 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Santos, F

    L. Santos, F. da Silva, C. Mota, I. Lobo and V. Bezerra, General Relativity and Gravitation 55 , 94 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Saadati and F

    R. Saadati and F. Shojai, Classical and Quantum Gravity 38 , 135025 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    Javed and M

    F. Javed and M. H. Alshehri, Annals of Physics 464 , 169658 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Dzhunushaliev, V

    V. Dzhunushaliev, V. Folomeev and D. Singleton, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 84 , 084025 (2011)

    2011

  59. [67]

    Boonserm, T

    P. Boonserm, T. Ngampitipan, A. Simpson and M. Visser, Physical Review D (2019), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.024022

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    Campitelli and L

    A. Campitelli and L. Mastrototaro, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18752 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, S. M. Morsink, A. V. Bilous, Z. Arzoumanian, D. Choudhury, J. S. Deneva et al. , The Astrophysical Journal Letters 918 , L27 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    B. A. et. al., Physical review letters 119 16 , 161101 (2017), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    2017 doi

  63. [71]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya et al. , Physical review letters 121 , 161101 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    C. D. Capano, I. Tews, S. M. Brown, B. Margalit, S. De, S. Kumar, D. A. Brown, B. Krishnan and S. Reddy, Nature Astronomy 4 , 625 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa, International Journal of Modern Physics D 15 , 1753 (2006)

    2006

  66. [74]

    S. G. Ghosh, The European Physical Journal C 76 , 222 (2016)

    2016

  67. [75]

    Jamil, S

    M. Jamil, S. Hussain and B. Majeed, The European Physical Journal C 75 , 1 (2015)

    2015

  68. [76]

    Visser, Classical and Quantum Gravity 37 , 045001 (2020)

    M. Visser, Classical and Quantum Gravity 37 , 045001 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    Caldwell and E

    R. Caldwell and E. V. Linder, Physical review letters 95 , 141301 (2005)

    2005

  70. [78]

    D. J. Holden and D. Wands, Physical Review D 61 , 043506 (2000)

    2000

  71. [79]

    Amendola, C

    L. Amendola, C. Quercellini and E. Giallongo, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 357 , 429 (2005)

    2005

  72. [80]

    Babichev, V

    E. Babichev, V. Dokuchaev and Y. N. Eroshenko, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 100 , 528 (2005)

    2005

  73. [81]

    E. O. Babichev, V. I. Dokuchaev and Y. N. Eroshenko, Physics-Uspekhi 56 , 1155 (2013)

    2013

  74. [82]

    Zlatev, L

    I. Zlatev, L. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt, Physical Review Letters 82 , 896 (1999)

    1999

  75. [83]

    C. T. Hill and G. G. Ross, Nuclear Physics B 311 , 253 (1988)

    1988

  76. [84]

    G. W. Anderson and S. M. Carroll, Dark matter with time-dependent mass, in COSMO-97\/ , (World Scientific, 1998), pp. 227--229

    1998

  77. [85]

    G. Huey, P. J. Steinhardt, B. A. Ovrut and D. Waldram, Physics Letters B 476 , 379 (2000)

    2000

  78. [86]

    Sagunski, J

    L. Sagunski, J. Zhang, M. Johnson, L. Lehner, M. Sakellariadou, S. Liebling, C. Palenzuela and D. Neilsen, Physical Review D 97 , 064016 (2017), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.064016

    2017 doi

  79. [87]

    Barreira, P

    A. Barreira, P. Brax, S. Clesse, B. Li and P. Valageas, Physical Review D 91 , 123522 (2015), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.123522

    2015 doi

  80. [88]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Annals of Physics 82 , 535 (1974)

    1974

  81. [89]

    L. H. Ford and T. A. Roman, Physical Review D 64 , 024023 (2001)

    2001

  82. [90]

    C. J. Fewster and L. W. Osterbrink, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 74 , 044021 (2006)

    2006

  83. [91]

    Jetzer, Physics Reports 220 , 163 (1992)

    P. Jetzer, Physics Reports 220 , 163 (1992)

    1992

  84. [92]

    T. L. S. Collaboration, T. V. Collaboration and B. A. et. al., Physical Review Letters 9 , 1 (2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

    2018 doi

  85. [93]

    Berti, L

    E. Berti, L. Gualtieri, M. Horbatsch and J. Alsing, Physical Review D 85 , 122005 (2012), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.122005

    2012 doi

  86. [94]

    Sennett, T

    N. Sennett, T. Hinderer, J. Steinhoff, A. Buonanno and S. Ossokine, Physical Review D 96 , 024002 (2017)

    2017

  87. [95]

    Upadhye, W

    A. Upadhye, W. Hu and J. Khoury, Physical review letters 109 4 , 041301 (2012), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.041301

    2012 doi

  88. [96]

    J. Betz, J. Manley, E. M. Wright, D. Grin and S. Singh, Physical Review Letters 129 , 131302 (2022)

    2022

  89. [97]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Annals of Physics 440 , 168839 (2022)

    2022

  90. [98]

    N. K. Glendenning, Physical Review Letters 85 , 1150 (2000)

    2000

  91. [99]

    R. B. Wiringa, V. Fiks and A. Fabrocini, Physical Review C 38 , 1010 (1988)

    1988

  92. [100]

    Douchin and P

    F. Douchin and P. Haensel, Astronomy & Astrophysics 380 , 151 (2001)

    2001

  93. [101]

    Akmal, V

    A. Akmal, V. Pandharipande and D. Ravenhall, Physical Review C 58 , 1804 (1998)

    1998

  94. [102]

    J. P. Crawford and D. Kazanas, The Astrophysical Journal 701 , 1701 (2009)

    2009

  95. [103]

    J. S. Read, B. D. Lackey, B. J. Owen and J. L. Friedman, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 79 , 124032 (2009)

    2009

  96. [104]

    J. S. Read, C. Markakis, M. Shibata, K. Ury \=u , J. D. Creighton and J. L. Friedman, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 79 , 124033 (2009)

    2009

  97. [105]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, Physical Review D 54 , 1474 (1996)

    1996

  98. [106]

    H. O. Silva, H. Sotani and E. Berti, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 459 , 4378 (2016)

    2016

  99. [107]

    Chatziioannou, General Relativity and Gravitation 52 , 109 (2020)

    K. Chatziioannou, General Relativity and Gravitation 52 , 109 (2020)

    2020

  100. [108]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. Adhikari, V. Adya, C. Affeldt et al. , The Astrophysical Journal 892 , L3 (2020)

    2020

  101. [109]

    Raaijmakers, S

    G. Raaijmakers, S. Greif, T. Riley, T. Hinderer, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, A. Watts, S. Nissanke, S. Guillot, J. Lattimer et al. , The Astrophysical Journal Letters 893 , L21 (2020)

    2020

  102. [110]

    Choudhury, T

    D. Choudhury, T. Salmi, S. Vinciguerra, T. E. Riley, Y. Kini, A. L. Watts, B. Dorsman, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, P. S. Ray et al. , The Astrophysical Journal Letters 971 , L20 (2024)

    2024

  103. [111]

    Mustafa, M

    G. Mustafa, M. F. Shamir and X. Tie-Cheng, Physical review D 101 , 104013 (2020)

    2020

  104. [112]

    Horvat and A

    D. Horvat and A. Marunovi \'c , Classical and quantum gravity 30 , 145006 (2013)

    2013

  105. [113]

    Maurya, S

    S. Maurya, S. Ray, S. Ghosh, S. Manna and T. Smitha, Annals of Physics 395 , 152 (2018)

    2018

  106. [114]

    Thirukkanesh and F

    S. Thirukkanesh and F. Ragel, Pramana 78 , 687 (2012)

    2012

  107. [115]

    Noureen, S

    I. Noureen, S. Mardan, M. Azam, W. Shahzad and S. Khalid, The European Physical Journal C 79 , 1 (2019)

    2019

  108. [116]

    Mardan, I

    S. Mardan, I. Noureen, M. Azam, M. Rehman and M. Hussan, The European Physical Journal C 78 , 1 (2018)

    2018

  109. [117]

    K. N. Singh, S. Maurya, P. Bhar and F. Rahaman, Physica Scripta 95 , 115301 (2020)

    2020

  110. [118]

    Sharif and A

    M. Sharif and A. Naeem, International Journal of Modern Physics A 35 , 2050121 (2020)

    2020

  111. [119]

    Morales and F

    E. Morales and F. Tello-Ortiz, The European Physical Journal C 78 , 1 (2018)

    2018

  112. [120]

    Raposo, P

    G. Raposo, P. Pani, M. Bezares, C. Palenzuela and V. Cardoso, Physical Review D 99 , 104072 (2019)

    2019

  113. [121]

    Mak and T

    M. Mak and T. Harko, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 459 , 393 (2003)

    2003

  114. [122]

    Maurya, A

    S. Maurya, A. Banerjee, M. K. Jasim, J. Kumar, A. Prasad and A. Pradhan, Physical Review D (2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.044029

    2018 doi

  115. [123]

    Herrera, Physics Letters A 165 , 206 (1992)

    L. Herrera, Physics Letters A 165 , 206 (1992)

    1992

  116. [124]

    Abreu, H

    H. Abreu, H. Hern \'a ndez and L. A. N \'u nez, Classical and Quantum Gravity 24 , 4631 (2007)

    2007

  117. [125]

    Tsizh, B

    M. Tsizh, B. Novosyadlyj and Y. Kulinich, arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.7323 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  118. [126]

    H. A. Buchdahl, Phys. Rev. 116 , 1027 (Nov 1959)

    1959

  119. [127]

    Andr \'e asson, Journal of Differential Equations 245 , 2243 (2008)

    H. Andr \'e asson, Journal of Differential Equations 245 , 2243 (2008)

    2008

  120. [128]

    Pani and V

    P. Pani and V. Ferrari, Classical and Quantum Gravity 35 , 15LT01 (2018)

    2018

  121. [129]

    S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky, Black holes, white dwarfs and neutron stars: the physics of compact objects (John Wiley & Sons, 2024)

    2024

  122. [130]

    E. F. Eiroa and C. Sendra, The European Physical Journal C 74 , 1 (2014), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3171-1

    2014 doi

  123. [131]

    Pang and J

    X. Pang and J. Jia, Classical and Quantum Gravity 36 (2018), doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab0512

    2018 doi

  124. [132]

    Zhang, J

    R. Zhang, J. Jing and S. Chen, Physical Review D 95 , 064054 (2017), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.064054

    2017 doi

  125. [133]

    Sarkar and A

    K. Sarkar and A. Bhadra, Classical and Quantum Gravity 23 , 6101 (2006), doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/22/002

    2006 doi

  126. [134]

    Tiede, M

    P. Tiede, M. D. Johnson, D. W. Pesce, D. C. Palumbo, D. O. Chang and P. Galison, Galaxies 10 , 111 (2022)

    2022

  127. [135]

    M. A. Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C. A. Prieto, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14738 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  128. [136]

    Tutusaus, C

    I. Tutusaus, C. Bonvin and N. Grimm, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06434 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  129. [137]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = after.quoted.blo...

Pith tools

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