pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.22783 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-24 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Dark energy stars from the modified Chaplygin gas: C-I-Λ-E_g-f universal relations

Krishna Pada Das , Juan M. Z. Pretel
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 01:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords dark energy starsmodified Chaplygin gasuniversal relationstidal deformabilitygravitational binding energyf-mode frequencyquark stars
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dark energy stars modeled with modified Chaplygin gas obey universal relations similar to quark stars except when gravitational binding energy is included.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates universal relations for dark energy stars described by the modified Chaplygin gas using properties including compactness, moment of inertia, tidal deformability, gravitational binding energy and f-mode frequency. These stars form stable configurations consistent with causality and observations. The relations among C, I, Lambda and f are nearly the same as for quark stars, but adding Eg creates clear distinctions through specific power-law relations. The analysis also derives predictions for 1.4 solar mass stars from GW170817 constraints and additional empirical ties to tidal deformability.

Core claim

Dark energy stars described by the modified Chaplygin gas can be dynamically stable and satisfy causality while matching mass-radius observations. These stars obey C-I-Love-f universal relations that are very similar to those satisfied by quark stars. However, relations involving gravitational binding energy such as I-Eg^{-2}, Lambda-Eg^{-5}, and f-Eg^{-2} allow strong distinction between dark energy stars and quark stars.

What carries the argument

Modified Chaplygin gas equation of state governing the interior structure, from which macroscopic observables C, I, Lambda, Eg and f are derived and shown to obey universal relations.

Load-bearing premise

The modified Chaplygin gas equation of state produces dynamically stable stellar configurations that satisfy causality and match observational mass-radius constraints.

What would settle it

Detection of a compact star whose I-Eg^{-2} or Lambda-Eg^{-5} relation deviates from the predicted values for modified Chaplygin gas models would falsify the model for that object.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.22783 by Juan M. Z. Pretel, Krishna Pada Das.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Pressure ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Mass-radius diagram for DESs with MCG EoS em [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Left panel: Moment of inertia versus gravitational mass for the DESs presented in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Left: Relation between the gravitational binding energy and central density. Right: Fundamental nonradial oscillation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Left: Normalized moment of inertia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Normalized MoI versus tidal deformability relation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Dimensionless [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. UR between the dimensionless [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Left panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Mass-radius predictions for the DE stellar models I (left) and II (right), where the colored regions represent the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. MoI (upper), tidal deformability (middle) and fundamental nonradial pulsation frequency (lower) as functions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Various relations involving Λ for case II, as in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Dark energy stars (DESs), described by the modified Chaplygin gas (MCG), can be dynamically stable and fall within different observational measurements. In this work, we employ diverse macroscopic properties, such as compactness $C$, moment of inertia $I$, tidal deformability $\Lambda$, gravitational binding energy $E_g$ and $f$-mode nonradial pulsation frequency, to explore whether they are correlated by universal relations (URs). Remarkably, our stellar configurations always obey the causality condition and are compatible with several observational mass-radius constraints. Via the $C-I-\text{Love}-f$ URs, our results reveal that we cannot distinguish quark stars (QSs) from DESs in the sense that DESs satisfy several URs very similar to those of QSs. However, when we involve $E_g$, DESs and QSs can be strongly distinguished through the $I-E_g^{-2}$, $\Lambda-E_g^{-5}$ and $f-E_g^{-2}$ URs. We also make use of these findings and the tidal deformability constraint from the GW170817 event to forecast the canonical properties of a $1.4\, M_\odot$ compact star. Furthermore, we present a set of fine empirical correlations involving the tidal deformability, obtained from an extensive scan of the parameter space of our DE stellar models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript explores universal relations (URs) among compactness C, moment of inertia I, tidal deformability Λ, gravitational binding energy Eg, and f-mode frequency f for dark energy stars modeled with the modified Chaplygin gas (MCG) equation of state. It claims that DES configurations always satisfy causality and observational mass-radius constraints, that C-I-Love-f URs are similar to those of quark stars (preventing distinction), but that I-Eg^{-2}, Λ-Eg^{-5}, and f-Eg^{-2} URs allow strong distinction between DESs and QSs. The relations are used to forecast canonical properties of a 1.4 M⊙ star consistent with the GW170817 tidal constraint, along with additional empirical correlations from an extensive MCG parameter scan.

Significance. If the models are confirmed to be stable and causal across the scanned parameter space, the Eg-based URs could provide a practical observational handle for distinguishing dark energy stars from quark stars in gravitational-wave data. The work adds to the catalog of compact-star universal relations and supplies empirical fits that might be tested against future observations, though the overall impact hinges on resolving the validation gaps for the underlying configurations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'our stellar configurations always obey the causality condition' and are 'compatible with several observational mass-radius constraints' is unsupported by any explicit verification (sound-speed radial profiles, tabulated ω₀² > 0 values, or data-exclusion criteria) for the full (A, B, α) scan; without these, the reported separation in the Eg relations cannot be considered robust.
  2. [Universal relations section] Universal relations section (around the I-Eg^{-2} and Λ-Eg^{-5} fits): these power-law relations are obtained by scanning and fitting the same MCG free parameters used to generate the stellar sequences, so they reduce by construction to properties of the chosen equation of state rather than independent, EOS-insensitive universals; this undermines the claim of a 'strong distinction' from quark-star relations.
  3. [GW170817 application paragraph] GW170817 application paragraph: the forecast for canonical 1.4 M⊙ properties invokes the tidal deformability constraint without detailing how mass-radius points were selected or confirming that no post-selection of only viable models occurred; this leaves open the possibility that the quoted predictions rest on a non-representative subset.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The notation for the MCG parameters A, B, and α should be introduced with explicit definitions and ranges in the methods section to improve readability.
  2. [Figures] Figures displaying the fitted URs would benefit from inclusion of the numerical fitting uncertainties or residual scatter to allow readers to assess the quality of the power-law approximations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and indicate the revisions we will make to improve the clarity and robustness of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'our stellar configurations always obey the causality condition' and are 'compatible with several observational mass-radius constraints' is unsupported by any explicit verification (sound-speed radial profiles, tabulated ω₀² > 0 values, or data-exclusion criteria) for the full (A, B, α) scan; without these, the reported separation in the Eg relations cannot be considered robust.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the explicit verification details were not sufficiently presented in the manuscript. Although we ensured causality (c_s^2 < 1) and stability (ω_0^2 > 0) throughout the parameter scan, these were not documented with profiles or tables. In the revised version, we will include representative radial profiles of the sound speed squared for several models, a summary table of the stability checks, and a clear statement of the data-exclusion criteria applied to the (A, B, α) space. This will substantiate the claims and support the robustness of the reported Eg relations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Universal relations section] Universal relations section (around the I-Eg^{-2} and Λ-Eg^{-5} fits): these power-law relations are obtained by scanning and fitting the same MCG free parameters used to generate the stellar sequences, so they reduce by construction to properties of the chosen equation of state rather than independent, EOS-insensitive universals; this undermines the claim of a 'strong distinction' from quark-star relations.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that these fits are specific to the MCG equation of state family and are not EOS-insensitive universal relations in the traditional sense. Our intention was to highlight that, within the class of dark energy stars modeled by MCG, the relations involving E_g differ from those found for quark stars, potentially allowing observational distinction between the two. We will revise the relevant section to explicitly state that these are empirical relations derived for the MCG models, which provide a means to differentiate DES from QS, rather than claiming broader universality. This clarification will address the concern while preserving the scientific point. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [GW170817 application paragraph] GW170817 application paragraph: the forecast for canonical 1.4 M⊙ properties invokes the tidal deformability constraint without detailing how mass-radius points were selected or confirming that no post-selection of only viable models occurred; this leaves open the possibility that the quoted predictions rest on a non-representative subset.

    Authors: We regret the omission of selection details. The canonical properties were forecasted using all MCG models from the scan that satisfy the GW170817 tidal deformability constraint (specifically, Λ_{1.4} within the reported bounds) in addition to the mass-radius observational constraints. There was no further post-selection; the predictions reflect the range over the viable parameter space. In the revision, we will add explicit description of the selection process, including the specific bounds used and the resulting parameter ranges for A, B, and α. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical correlations from numerical EOS scan

full rationale

The paper numerically generates dark energy star sequences by scanning the modified Chaplygin gas parameters (A, B, α), solves the stellar structure equations for each, and directly computes the set of macroscopic observables (C, I, Λ, E_g, f). It then reports the observed correlations among these computed quantities as universal relations and compares the resulting families to quark-star sequences. No step claims a first-principles derivation that reduces by construction to the input EOS parameters or to a fitted subset; the relations are simply the numerical output of the models themselves. No load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or ansätze are invoked. The work is therefore a self-contained numerical exploration whose central claims follow directly from the computed data without circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the modified Chaplygin gas equation of state whose parameters are adjusted to produce stable, causal stellar models, plus the standard assumptions of general-relativistic hydrostatic equilibrium.

free parameters (1)
  • Modified Chaplygin gas parameters (A, B, alpha)
    These parameters are varied to generate families of stable stellar configurations compatible with observations.
axioms (1)
  • standard math General-relativistic hydrostatic equilibrium (Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation)
    All stellar models are constructed under the assumption that the Einstein equations reduce to the standard structure equations for spherical stars.
invented entities (1)
  • Dark energy stars no independent evidence
    purpose: Compact objects whose interior is governed by the modified Chaplygin gas
    A postulated class of stars introduced to explore exotic high-density matter.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5554 in / 1561 out tokens · 62526 ms · 2026-05-15T01:16:27.199537+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 101 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    and PSR J0737-3039A [72]. C. Tidal deformability In this subsection, we analyze the dimensionless tidal deformability for our DES models. Such tidal deforma- bility characterizes how a compact star responds to an external tidal fieldE ij created by its distant companion star. Consequently, the originally spherically symmetric star acquires an induced quad...

    work page

  2. [2]

    −4πR3ρs/M

    by examining linear perturbations of the background metric: gµν =g 0 µν +h µν,(15) withg 0 µν being the equilibrium configuration metric and hµν is a linearized metric perturbation. So, the perturbed metric can be written as [76] hµν = diag h −e2Φ(r)H0, e2Ψ(r)H2, r2K, r2Ksin 2 θ i ×Y2m(θ, ϕ),(16) where the variablesH 0,H 2, andKare radial functions determ...

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Perlmutteret al., Nature391, 51 (1998)

    S. Perlmutteret al., Nature391, 51 (1998)

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    A. G. Riesset al., Astron. J.116, 1009 (1998)

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Hickenet al., Astrophys

    M. Hickenet al., Astrophys. J.700, 1097 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Seikel and D

    M. Seikel and D. J. Schwarz, JCAP02, 024 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Aghanimet al., Astron

    N. Aghanimet al., Astron. Astrophys641, A6 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Kamenshchik, U

    A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, and V. Pasquier, Phys. Lett. B511, 265 (2001)

    work page 2001

  9. [9]

    Bili´ c, G

    N. Bili´ c, G. B. Tupper, and R. D. Viollier, Phys. Lett. B535, 17 (2002)

    work page 2002

  10. [10]

    Makler, S

    M. Makler, S. Q. de Oliveira, and I. Waga, Phys. Lett. B555, 1 (2003)

    work page 2003

  11. [11]

    Debnath, A

    U. Debnath, A. Banerjee, and S. Chakraborty, Class. Quantum Grav.21, 5609 (2004)

    work page 2004

  12. [12]

    Pourhassan and E

    B. Pourhassan and E. Kahya, Results Phys.4, 101 (2014)

    work page 2014

  13. [13]

    Zhenget al., Eur

    J. Zhenget al., Eur. Phys. J. C82, 582 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Bento, O

    M. Bento, O. Bertolami, and A. Sen, Phys. Lett. B575, 172 (2003)

    work page 2003

  15. [15]

    J. Lu, Y. Gui, and L. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. C63, 349 (2009)

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    Lianet al., MNRAS505, 2111 (2021)

    Y. Lianet al., MNRAS505, 2111 (2021)

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D66, 043507 (2002)

    work page 2002

  18. [18]

    Panotopoulos, ´A

    G. Panotopoulos, ´A. Rinc´ on, and I. Lopes, Phys. Dark Univ.34, 100885 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    J. M. Z. Pretel, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 26 (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Bhattacharjee and P

    D. Bhattacharjee and P. K. Chattopadhyay, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 77 (2024)

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    O. P. Jyothilakshmi, L. J. Naik, and V. Sreekanth, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 427 (2024)

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Banerjeeet al., Eur

    A. Banerjeeet al., Eur. Phys. J. C85, 844 (2025)

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Panotopoulos, Galaxies13, 13 (2025)

    G. Panotopoulos, Galaxies13, 13 (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Dymnikova, Gen

    I. Dymnikova, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.24, 235 (1992)

    work page 1992

  25. [25]

    Coleman and F

    S. Coleman and F. De Luccia, Phys. Rev. D21, 3305 (1980)

    work page 1980

  26. [26]

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences101, 9545 (2004)

    work page 2004

  27. [27]

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Universe9, 88 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    V. V. Kiselev, Class. Quantum Grav.20, 1187 (2003)

    work page 2003

  29. [29]

    Fernando, Gen

    S. Fernando, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.44, 1857 (2012)

    work page 2012

  30. [30]

    S. V. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. D71, 043520 (2005)

    work page 2005

  31. [31]

    Dark Energy Stars

    G. Chapline, arXiv:astro-ph/0503200 (2005)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  32. [32]

    Beltracchi and P

    P. Beltracchi and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D99, 044037 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D83, 127501 (2011)

    work page 2011

  34. [34]

    M. F. Sakti and A. Sulaksono, Phys. Rev. D103, 084042 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    C. R. Ghezzi, Astrophys. Space Sci.333, 437 (2011)

    work page 2011

  36. [36]

    A. B. Tudeshki, G. Bordbar, and B. E. Panah, Phys. Lett. B835, 137523 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    A. B. Tudeshki, G. Bordbar, and B. E. Panah, Phys. Lett. B848, 138333 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    K. P. Das and U. Debnath, Eur. Phys. J. Plus139, 988 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Smerechynskyi, M

    S. Smerechynskyi, M. Tsizh, and B. Novosyadlyj, JCAP 02, 045 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    J. M. Z. Pretel, M. Dutra, and S. B. Duarte, Phys. Rev. D109, 023524 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    J. M. Z. Pretel, S. B. Duarte, J. D. V. Arba˜ nil, M. Dutra, and O. Louren¸ co, Phys. Rev. D110, 124019 (2024)

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    J. M. Z. Pretel, M. Dutra, and S. B. Duarte, (2024), arXiv:2412.13568 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    R. Chan, M. Da Silva, and J. F. Villas da Rocha, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.41, 1835 (2009)

    work page 2009

  44. [44]

    P. Bhar, M. Govender, and R. Sharma, Pramana90, 1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    Estevez-Delgado, M

    J. Estevez-Delgado, M. P. Duran, A. Cleary-Balderas, N. E. Rodr´ ıguez Maya, and J. M. Pe˜ na, Mod. Phys. Lett. A36, 2150213 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    K. P. Das, U. Debnath, and S. Ray, Fortschr. Phys.71, 2200148 (2023)

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Bhar and J

    P. Bhar and J. M. Z. Pretel, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101322 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    K. P. Das, U. Debnath, A. Ashraf, and M. Khurana, Phys. Dark Univ.43, 101398 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    K. P. Das and U. Debnath, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 329 (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    D’Onofrio, Eur

    S. D’Onofrio, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 672 (2025)

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D88, 023009 (2013)

    work page 2013

  52. [52]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D91, 123008 (2015)

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    Haskell, R

    B. Haskell, R. Ciolfi, F. Pannarale, and L. Rezzolla, MNRAS438, L71 (2013)

    work page 2013

  54. [54]

    Chakrabarti, T

    S. Chakrabarti, T. Delsate, N. G¨ urlebeck, and J. Stein- hoff, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 201102 (2014)

    work page 2014

  55. [55]

    Gupta, B

    T. Gupta, B. Majumder, K. Yagi, and N. Yunes, Class. Quantum Grav.35, 025009 (2017)

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    Bandyopadhyay, S

    D. Bandyopadhyay, S. A. Bhat, P. Char, and D. Chat- terjee, Eur. Phys. J. A54, 26 (2018)

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    Jiang, S.-P

    J.-L. Jiang, S.-P. Tang, Y.-Z. Wang, Y.-Z. Fan, and D.- M. Wei, Astrophys. J.892, 55 (2020)

    work page 2020

  58. [58]

    Yeung, L.-M

    C.-H. Yeung, L.-M. Lin, N. Andersson, and G. Comer, Universe7, 111 (2021)

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    Zhao and J

    T. Zhao and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D106, 123002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    J. M. Z. Pretel, Phys. Scr.99, 085001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    Negreiros, C

    R. Negreiros, C. Zhang, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D111, 063026 (2025)

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    H. C. Das, Phys. Rev. D106, 103518 (2022)

    work page 2022

  63. [63]

    S. R. Mohanty, S. Ghosh, P. Routaray, H. Das, and B. Kumar, JCAP03, 054 (2024)

    work page 2024

  64. [64]

    Guedes, S

    V. Guedes, S. Ajith, S. Y. Lau, and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D113, 043025 (2026)

    work page 2026

  65. [65]

    Sotani and A

    H. Sotani and A. Kumar, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1438 (2025)

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    Doroshenko, V

    V. Doroshenko, V. Suleimanov, G. Phlhofer, and A. San- tangelo, Nat. Astron.6, 1444 (2022)

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    T. E. Rileyet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L21 (2019)

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L24 (2019)

    work page 2019

  69. [69]

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

    work page 2021

  70. [70]

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

    work page 2021

  71. [71]

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

    work page 1939

  72. [72]

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

    work page 1939

  73. [73]

    H. O. Silva, A. M. Holgado, A. C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 181101 (2021)

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    Landry and B

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

    work page 2018

  75. [75]

    Hu and P

    H. Hu and P. C. C. Freire, Universe10, 160 (2024)

    work page 2024

  76. [76]

    J. B. Hartle, Astrophys. J.150, 1005 (1967)

    work page 1967

  77. [77]

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

    work page 1967

  78. [78]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

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

    work page 2008

  79. [79]

    Hinderer, B

    T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang, and J. S. Read, Phys. Rev. D81, 123016 (2010). 19

    work page 2010

  80. [80]

    J. M. Z. Pretel and C. Zhang, JCAP10, 032 (2024)

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.