pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09976 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-11 · 🌀 gr-qc

Probing geometrically perturbed strange stars with minimal decoupling using millisecond pulsar timing observations

K. N. Singh , S. K. Maurya , A. Errehymy , A. Altaibayeva , J. Rayimbaev , M. Matyoqubov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords strange starsminimal geometric deformationanisotropic fluidMIT bag modelpulsar timingstellar stabilityBuchdahl limitgeneral relativity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Minimal geometric deformation with a sinusoidal perturbation lets strange star models match the masses and radii of four observed high-mass pulsars while remaining stable.

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

The paper builds an anisotropic strange star by taking a seed solution obeying the MIT bag equation of state and splitting the Einstein equations via minimal geometric deformation. An extra source sector is introduced through a deformation parameter beta and a radial scale Psi that enters the function g(r) equal to sin of Psi r squared. This produces interior geometries matched to an exterior Schwarzschild vacuum that reproduce the measured masses of PSR J0740+6620, J1810+1744, J1959+2048, and J2215+5135 together with radii between 11.3 and 12.9 km. The resulting configurations reach a maximum mass near 2.28 solar masses, display outward-increasing anisotropy that adds about 15 percent to compactness, and satisfy the condition that mass increases with central density, confirming dynamical stability below the Buchdahl bound.

Core claim

A gravitationally decoupled anisotropic strange star model is obtained by applying minimal geometric deformation to a MIT-bag seed solution, with the additional source sector controlled by beta and the perturbation function g(r) = sin(Psi r squared). The Einstein system splits into seed and theta sectors that are solved consistently and joined to the Schwarzschild exterior. For beta equal to 3 times 10 to the minus 3 and Psi near 0.03 per square kilometer the configuration reaches a maximum mass of approximately 2.28 solar masses with radii 11.3 to 12.9 km, central densities 2.4 to 3.1 times 10 to the minus 4 per square kilometer, and surface anisotropy 0.25 to 0.45 times 10 to the minus 4;

What carries the argument

Minimal geometric deformation split of the Einstein equations into seed and theta sectors, driven by the deformation parameter beta and the sinusoidal radial function g(r) = sin(Psi r squared) applied to a MIT-bag strange-star seed.

If this is right

  • The model reproduces the observed masses of PSR J0740+6620, J1810+1744, J1959+2048, and J2215+5135 together with radii 11.3-12.9 km.
  • Maximum mass reaches 2.28 solar masses for beta equal to 3 times 10 to the minus 3 and Psi near 0.03 km to the minus 2.
  • Anisotropy rises from zero at the center to 0.25-0.45 times 10 to the minus 4 km to the minus 2 near the surface, supplying extra outward support.
  • Compactness lies between 0.17 and 0.22 and remains below the Buchdahl limit while the derivative of mass with respect to central density stays positive.
  • The parameter beta increases maximum mass by up to 15 percent while Psi adds controlled radial structure without violating stability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the deformation parameters are fixed by these pulsars, the same interior solution could be inserted into binary merger simulations to predict gravitational-wave signatures distinct from neutron-star models.
  • The oscillatory radial dependence introduced by the sine function may produce measurable shifts in the fundamental radial oscillation frequency of the star.
  • Extending the construction to slowly rotating configurations would allow direct comparison with measured pulsar spin-down rates and moment-of-inertia constraints.
  • The approach suggests that controlled geometric perturbations could be used more broadly to generate anisotropic interiors for other compact objects while preserving matching conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen sinusoidal deformation function together with the minimal-decoupling split accurately represents the interior of strange stars without creating unphysical features that other observations would rule out.

What would settle it

Detection of a stable pulsar whose mass-radius pair lies outside the interval 2.08 to 2.28 solar masses and 11.3 to 12.9 km for the reported parameter ranges would falsify the model's ability to reproduce the current pulsar sample.

read the original abstract

We construct a gravitationally decoupled anisotropic strange star model using the minimal geometric deformation approach with a MIT bag equation of state and an additional source sector controlled by a deformation parameter $\beta$ and a radial perturbation scale $\Psi$ through $g(r)=\sin(\Psi r^{2})$. The resulting Einstein system is consistently split into seed and $\theta$-sectors and matched to an exterior Schwarzschild geometry. The model is constrained by high-mass pulsars: PSR J0740+6620 $(2.08\pm0.07\,M_\odot)$, PSR J1810+1744 $(2.13\pm0.04\,M_\odot)$, PSR J1959+2048 $(2.18\pm0.09\,M_\odot)$, and PSR J2215+5135 $(2.28^{+0.10}_{-0.09}\,M_\odot)$. It reproduces these objects with predicted radii $R \approx 11.3$--$12.9$ km. The maximum mass reaches $M_{\max} \approx 2.28\,M_\odot$ for $\beta = 3\times 10^{-3}$ and $\Psi \approx 0.03\,\text{km}^{-2}$, while for $\beta = 10^{-3}$ the configuration yields $M_{\max} \approx 2.12\,M_\odot$ with $R \approx 12.2$ km. The central density lies in $\rho_c \approx (2.4$--$3.1)\times 10^{-4}\,\text{km}^{-2}$, decreasing smoothly to $\rho_s \approx 2.0\times 10^{-4}\,\text{km}^{-2}$. The anisotropy increases from zero at the center to $\Delta \approx (0.25$--$0.45)\times 10^{-4}\,\text{km}^{-2}$ near the surface, generating additional outward support that enhances compactness by $\sim 15\%$. The compactness parameter spans $C \approx 0.17$--$0.22$, safely below the Buchdahl limit, while the surface redshift reaches $z_s \approx 0.25$--$0.38$. The condition $dM/d\rho_c > 0$ is satisfied throughout, confirming dynamical stability. Overall, $\beta$ enhances the maximum mass by up to $\sim 15\%$, while $\Psi$ introduces controlled oscillatory structure without violating observational constraints, producing stable ultra-compact stars consistent with current pulsar data.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a gravitationally decoupled anisotropic strange star model using the minimal geometric deformation (MGD) approach with a MIT bag equation of state. An additional θ-sector is introduced via the deformation function g(r)=sin(Ψ r²) controlled by parameters β and Ψ. The Einstein equations are split consistently into seed and θ-sectors and matched to an exterior Schwarzschild geometry. Parameters are chosen to reproduce the observed masses of four millisecond pulsars (PSR J0740+6620, J1810+1744, J1959+2048, J2215+5135), yielding radii 11.3-12.9 km, M_max ≈ 2.28 M_⊙ at β=3×10^{-3} and Ψ≈0.03 km^{-2}, positive anisotropy Δ increasing to (0.25-0.45)×10^{-4} km^{-2} near the surface, compactness C≈0.17-0.22 below the Buchdahl limit, and dynamical stability via dM/dρ_c >0.

Significance. If the interior solution remains physically valid with positive energy density, pressures, and energy conditions throughout, this demonstrates how MGD can introduce controlled anisotropy to enhance the maximum mass of strange stars by ~15%, providing a framework to interpret high-mass pulsar observations. The explicit use of timing data for parameter constraints and the stability check add astrophysical relevance.

major comments (1)
  1. [Model construction and deformation function g(r)] For the reported Ψ≈0.03 km^{-2} and R≈12 km, g(r)=sin(Ψ r²) has a zero-crossing at r≈10.2 km (Ψ R²≈4.3 rad >π). The θ-sector terms sourcing the anisotropy Δ=p_t-p_r scale with β g(r) and its derivatives, so Δ reverses sign in the outer layers. This directly contradicts the abstract claim that Δ increases to positive values (0.25–0.45)×10^{-4} km^{-2} near the surface and risks violating positivity of pressures or energy conditions. The downstream checks dM/dρ_c >0 and Buchdahl compliance cannot rescue an inconsistent interior solution.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that Ψ introduces 'controlled oscillatory structure without violating observational constraints' but does not provide explicit verification (e.g., plots of ρ(r), p_r(r), p_t(r), or energy-condition functions) that the oscillations remain physical for the chosen Ψ.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and for identifying a critical inconsistency in the parameter choice for the deformation function. We address the concern directly below and commit to revisions that restore physical consistency without altering the core methodology or conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: For the reported Ψ≈0.03 km^{-2} and R≈12 km, g(r)=sin(Ψ r²) has a zero-crossing at r≈10.2 km (Ψ R²≈4.3 rad >π). The θ-sector terms sourcing the anisotropy Δ=p_t-p_r scale with β g(r) and its derivatives, so Δ reverses sign in the outer layers. This directly contradicts the abstract claim that Δ increases to positive values (0.25–0.45)×10^{-4} km^{-2} near the surface and risks violating positivity of pressures or energy conditions. The downstream checks dM/dρ_c >0 and Buchdahl compliance cannot rescue an inconsistent interior solution.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the chosen value Ψ ≈ 0.03 km^{-2} yields Ψ R² ≈ 4.32 > π for R ≈ 12 km, causing g(r) to cross zero at r ≈ 10.23 km and become negative in the outer layers. Because the θ-sector contributions to Δ involve terms proportional to β g(r), g'(r), and g''(r), this sign change in g(r) can indeed reverse the sign of Δ, contradicting the stated positive increase near the surface and potentially compromising energy-condition positivity. This is a genuine oversight in our parameter selection. In the revised manuscript we will lower Ψ to ≈ 0.015 km^{-2} (ensuring Ψ R² < π for all reported radii 11.3–12.9 km), recompute the full set of interior solutions, anisotropy profiles, mass-radius curves, and stability indicators, and update the abstract, tables, and figures accordingly. The revised models will retain the same β range and MIT-bag EOS while guaranteeing Δ > 0 everywhere and preserving the reported maximum mass enhancement of ~15 %. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation and fitting are self-contained

full rationale

The paper constructs the interior solution by splitting the Einstein equations via the minimal geometric deformation method, seeding with the MIT bag EOS, adopting the explicit ansatz g(r)=sin(Ψ r²) for the deformation function, integrating the resulting ODEs, and imposing exterior Schwarzschild matching. Parameters β and Ψ are then tuned to place the model masses inside the observed ranges for the listed pulsars, after which radii, compactness, anisotropy profiles, and stability indicators (dM/dρ_c >0, Buchdahl compliance) are computed as outputs. This is ordinary parameter adjustment to data rather than any reduction of a claimed prediction to the fitted inputs by construction. No self-definitional loops, load-bearing self-citations, or imported uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text that would collapse the central claims to tautologies.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model rests on the Einstein equations in spherical symmetry, the MIT bag equation of state for strange quark matter, the minimal geometric deformation ansatz that decouples the seed and theta sectors, and the assumption that the exterior is exactly Schwarzschild. Two free parameters beta and Psi are introduced and fitted to data.

free parameters (2)
  • beta
    Deformation parameter controlling the strength of the additional theta-sector source; values 10^{-3} and 3x10^{-3} are chosen to match observed masses.
  • Psi
    Radial perturbation scale in the deformation function g(r)=sin(Psi r^2); value approximately 0.03 km^{-2} is selected to produce the reported maximum mass.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Einstein field equations hold with an anisotropic energy-momentum tensor split into seed and theta sectors via minimal geometric deformation
    Invoked throughout the construction of the interior solution and matching to exterior geometry.
  • domain assumption MIT bag equation of state p = (rho - 4B)/3 describes the strange quark matter
    Used as the base equation of state for the seed solution.
invented entities (1)
  • theta-sector source no independent evidence
    purpose: Additional gravitational source that generates anisotropy and extra outward support
    Introduced by the minimal geometric deformation procedure; no independent observational signature is provided beyond fitting the pulsar masses.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5806 in / 1901 out tokens · 52728 ms · 2026-05-10T16:47:29.536828+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 107 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I. H. Stairs, Living Rev. Rel.6, 5 (2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    D. J. Reardon, G. Hobbs, W. Coles, Y. Levin, M. J. Keith, M. Bailes, N. D. R. Bhat, S. Burke-Spolaor, S. Dai and M. Kerr,et al.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.455, no.2, 1751-1769 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Bogdanov, S

    S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, P. S. Ray, M. T. Wolff, D. Chakrabarty, W. C. G. Ho, M. Kerr, F. K. Lamb, A. Lommen and R. M. Ludlam,et al.Astrophys. J. Lett.887, no.1, L25 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Bogdanov, F

    S. Bogdanov, F. K. Lamb, S. Mahmoodifar, M. C. Miller, S. M. Morsink, T. E. Riley, T. E. Strohmayer, A. L. Watts, A. J. Dittmann and D. Chakrabarty,et al.Astrophys. J. Lett.887, no.1, L26 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett.116, no.6, 061102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Bhattacharyya, I

    S. Bhattacharyya, I. Bombaci, D. lnoteta and A. V. Thampan, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.457, no.3, 3101-3114 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. Nättilä and A. Vuorinen, Nature Phys.16, no.9, 907-910 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D30, 272-285 (1984)

    work page 1984

  9. [9]

    Farhi and R

    E. Farhi and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D30, 2379 (1984)

    work page 1984

  10. [10]

    Özel and P

    F. Özel and P. Freire, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.54, 401-440 (2016)

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    H. T. Cromartieet al.[NANOGrav], Nature Astron.4, no.1, 72-76 (2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Fonseca, H

    E. Fonseca, H. T. Cromartie, T. T. Pennucci, P. S. Ray, A. Y. Kirichenko, S. M. Ransom, P. B. Demorest, I. H. Stairs, Z. Arzoumanian and L. Guillemot,et al. Astrophys. J. Lett.915, no.1, L12 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer and M. Loewenstein,et al. Astrophys. J. Lett.918, no.2, L28 (2021)

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, S. M. Morsink, A. V. Bilous, Z. Arzoumanian, D. Choudhury and J. S. Deneva,et al.Astrophys. J. Lett.918, no.2, L27 (2021)

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Antoniadis, P

    J. Antoniadis, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, T. M. Tauris, R. S. Lynch, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Kramer, C. Bassa, V. S. Dhillon and T. Driebe,et al.Science340, 6131 (2013)

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    Demorest, T

    P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts and J. Hessels, Nature467, 1081-1083 (2010)

    work page 2010

  17. [17]

    Fonseca, T

    E. Fonseca, T. T. Pennucci, J. A. Ellis, I. H. Stairs, D. J. Nice, S. M. Ransom, P. B. Demorest, Z. Arzoumanian, K. Crowter and T. Dolch,et al.Astrophys. J.832, no.2, 167 (2016)

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    Arzoumanianet al.[NANOGRAV], Astrophys

    Z. Arzoumanianet al.[NANOGRAV], Astrophys. J.859, no.1, 47 (2018) – 25 –

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho and J. M. Lattimer,et al. Astrophys. J. Lett.887, no.1, L24 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Raaijmakers, T

    G. Raaijmakers, T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. K. Greif, S. M. Morsink, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, T. Hinderer, S. Nissanke and S. Guillot,et al.Astrophys. J. Lett.887, no.1, L22 (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Gonzalez-Caniulef, S

    D. Gonzalez-Caniulef, S. Guillot and A. Reisenegger, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.490, no.4, 5848-5859 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett.121, no.16, 161101 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Astrophys. J. Lett.896, no.2, L44 (2020)

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    Doroshenko, V

    V. Doroshenko, V. Suleimanov, G. Pühlhofer and A. Santangelo, Nature Astron.6, no.12, 1444-1451 (2022)

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink and W. Zheng, Astrophys. J. Lett.934, no.2, L17 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    El Hanafy and A

    W. El Hanafy and A. Awad, Astrophys. J.951, no.2, 144 (2023)

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Y. Yang, V. Gayathri, I. Bartos, Z. Haiman, M. Safarzadeh and H. Tagawa, Astrophys. J. Lett.901, no.2, L34 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    A. Alho, J. Natário, P. Pani and G. Raposo, Phys. Rev. D106, no.4, L041502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    A. Alho, J. Natário, P. Pani and G. Raposo, Phys. Rev. D105, no.4, 044025 (2022) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D105, no.12, 129903 (2022)]

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Roupas and G

    Z. Roupas and G. G. L. Nashed, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.10, 905 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Raposo, P

    G. Raposo, P. Pani, M. Bezares, C. Palenzuela and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D99, no.10, 104072 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Cardoso and P

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Living Rev. Rel.22, no.1, 4 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Errehymy, I

    A. Errehymy, I. Karar, K. Myrzakulov, A. Banerjee, A. H. Abdel-Aty and K. S. Nisar, JHEAp44, 410-418 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    S. K. Maurya, A. Errehymy, B. Dayanandan, O. Donmez, K. Myrzakulov, K. S. Nisar and M. Mahmoud, JHEAp45, 46-61 (2025)

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    S. K. Maurya, M. K. Jasim, A. Errehymy, K. Boshkayev, G. Mustafa and B. Dayanandan, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101665 (2024)

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    S. K. Maurya, A. Errehymy, K. Newton Singh, A. Aziz, S. Hansraj and S. Ray, Astrophys. J.972, no.2, 175 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Hansraj and A

    S. Hansraj and A. Errehymy, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101632 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Rahmatov, S

    B. Rahmatov, S. Murodov, J. Rayimbaev, Y. Turaev, I. Egamberdiev, Badalov, S. Ahmedov, S. Usanov Ann. Phys.,488171366 (2026)

    work page 2026

  39. [39]

    Rahmatov, I.Egamberdiev

    B. Rahmatov, I.Egamberdiev. O. Umarov, M. Vapayev, S. Karshiboev, Y. Turaev, S. Murodov Nucl. Phys. B1022117212 (2026) – 26 –

    work page 2026

  40. [40]

    S. Khan, J. Rayimbaev, S. Iskandarov, A. Seytov, I Ibragimov, S. Muminov, Phys. Dark Universe51102220 (2026)

    work page 2026

  41. [41]

    Malik, A

    A. Malik, A. Almas, A. Shafaq and F. Mofarreh, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.22, no.05, 2450331 (2025)

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    Varela, F

    V. Varela, F. Rahaman, S. Ray, K. Chakraborty and M. Kalam, Phys. Rev. D82, 044052 (2010)

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    Malik, M

    A. Malik, M. Batool, E. Meer, M. F. Shamir and A. H. Alkhaldi, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.21, no.10, 2440025 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Ashraf, F

    A. Ashraf, F. Javed, W. X. Ma and G. Mustafa, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.21, no.09, 2450161 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    S. K. Maurya, F. Tello-Ortiz and S. Ray, Phys. Dark Univ.31, 100753 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Ditta, X

    A. Ditta, X. Tiecheng, M. Asia and I. Mahmood, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.21, no.04, 2450076 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    S. K. Maurya, G. Mustafa, S. Ray, B. Dayanandan, A. Aziz and A. Errehymy, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101284 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    S. Rani, M. Adeel, M. Z. Gul and A. Jawad, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.21, no.01, 2450033 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    Kumar, G

    J. Kumar, G. Miglani, S. Chaudhary and R. S. Chandelkar, Phys. Scripta100, no.3, 035015 (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Asghara, M

    Z. Asghara, M. Farasat Shamir, F. Mofarreh, J. Rayimbaev, O. Sirajiddin, F. Shayimov, Nuc. Phys B.1024, 117338 (2026)

    work page 2026

  51. [51]

    Asghar, M

    Z. Asghar, M. F. Shamir, F. Mofarreh, J. Rayimbaev, O. Sirajiddin and F. Shayimov, Nucl. Phys. B1024, 117338 (2026)

    work page 2026

  52. [52]

    Asghar, M

    Z. Asghar, M. F. Shamir, F. Mofarreh, J. Rayimbaev, O. Sirajiddin and F. Shayimov, Nucl. Phys. B1025, 117417 (2026)

    work page 2026

  53. [53]

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Astrophys. J. Lett.848, no.2, L12 (2017)

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    Guo and Y

    L. Guo and Y. Niu, Phys. Rev. C110, no.1, L012801 (2024)

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    Radice, A

    D. Radice, A. Perego, F. Zappa and S. Bernuzzi, Astrophys. J. Lett.852, no.2, L29 (2018)

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    G. F. Burgio, A. Drago, G. Pagliara, H. J. Schulze and J. B. Wei, Astrophys. J.860, no.2, 139 (2018)

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    M. Ruiz, S. L. Shapiro and A. Tsokaros, Phys. Rev. D97, no.2, 021501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    Abbottet al.[KAGRA, VIRGO and LIGO Scientific], Phys

    R. Abbottet al.[KAGRA, VIRGO and LIGO Scientific], Phys. Rev. X13, no.1, 011048 (2023)

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    C. D. Bailyn, R. K. Jain, P. Coppi and J. A. Orosz, Astrophys. J.499, 367 (1998)

    work page 1998

  60. [60]

    F. Ozel, D. Psaltis, R. Narayan and J. E. McClintock, Astrophys. J.725, 1918-1927 (2010) – 27 –

    work page 1918

  61. [61]

    W. M. Farr, N. Sravan, A. Cantrell, L. Kreidberg, C. D. Bailyn, I. Mandel and V. Kalnera, Astrophys. J.741, 103 (2011)

    work page 2011

  62. [62]

    Arca Sedda, Astrophys

    M. Arca Sedda, Astrophys. J. Lett.908, no.2, L38 (2021)

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    P. Bhar, A. Errehymy, S. Ray, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1151 (2023)

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    Samsing, D

    J. Samsing, D. J. D’Orazio, K. Kremer, C. L. Rodriguez and A. Askar, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.12, 123010 (2020)

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    C. S. Ye, W. f. Fong, K. Kremer, C. L. Rodriguez, S. Chatterjee, G. Fragione and F. A. Rasio, Astrophys. J. Lett.888, no.1, L10 (2020)

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    Fragione, A

    G. Fragione, A. Loeb and F. A. Rasio, Astrophys. J. Lett.895, no.1, L15 (2020)

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    W. Lu, P. Beniamini and C. Bonnerot, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.500, no.2, 1817-1832 (2020)

    work page 2020

  68. [68]

    Liu and D

    B. Liu and D. Lai, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502, no.2, 2049-2064 (2021)

    work page 2049

  69. [69]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    I. Bartos, S. Rosswog, V. Gayathri, M. C. Miller, D. Veske and S. Marka, [arXiv:2302.10350 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page arXiv

  70. [70]

    Farrow, X

    N. Farrow, X. J. Zhu and E. Thrane, Astrophys. J.876, no.1, 18 (2019)

    work page 2019

  71. [71]

    Kiziltan, A

    B. Kiziltan, A. Kottas, M. De Yoreo and S. E. Thorsett, Astrophys. J.778, 66 (2013)

    work page 2013

  72. [72]

    Valentim, E

    R. Valentim, E. Rangel and J. E. Horvath, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.414, 1427 (2011)

    work page 2011

  73. [73]

    C. M. Zhang, J. Wang, Y. H. Zhao, H. X. Yin, L. M. Song, D. P. Menezes, D. T. Wickramasinghe, L. Ferrario and P. Chardonnet, Astron. Astrophys.527, A83 (2011)

    work page 2011

  74. [74]

    Ovalle, Phys

    J. Ovalle, Phys. Rev. D95, no.10, 104019 (2017)

    work page 2017

  75. [75]

    Ovalle, Phys

    J. Ovalle, Phys. Lett. B788, 213-218 (2019)

    work page 2019

  76. [76]

    da Rocha, Phys

    R. da Rocha, Phys. Rev. D102, no.2, 024011 (2020)

    work page 2020

  77. [77]

    Ovalle, R

    J. Ovalle, R. Casadio, R. da Rocha and A. Sotomayor, Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.2, 122 (2018)

    work page 2018

  78. [78]

    Ovalle, R

    J. Ovalle, R. Casadio, R. d. Rocha, A. Sotomayor and Z. Stuchlik, Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.11, 960 (2018)

    work page 2018

  79. [79]

    Ovalle, C

    J. Ovalle, C. Posada and Z. Stuchlík, Class. Quant. Grav.36, no.20, 205010 (2019)

    work page 2019

  80. [80]

    Casadio, E

    R. Casadio, E. Contreras, J. Ovalle, A. Sotomayor and Z. Stuchlick, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.10, 826 (2019)

    work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.