Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

This paper argues that rapidly rotating stars built from strangeon matter—quark clusters bound by the strong force—can form dynamically stable ergostars whose extractable rotational energy reaches about 10^52 erg, enough to power a short ga

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 12:38 UTC pith:6BDP2LTG

load-bearing objection A competent equilibrium survey that overclaims dynamical stability: the turning-point analysis cannot rule out the ergoregion instability that generically afflicts horizonless rotators. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.01949 v2 pith:6BDP2LTG submitted 2026-01-05 astro-ph.HE

Strangeon Ergostars

Haojia Xia , Shichuan Chen , Hong-Bo Li , Enping Zhou , Ren-Xin Xu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords strangeon matterergostarergoregionshort gamma-ray burstsbinary neutron star mergersequation of stateturning-point stabilityrotational energy extraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper attempts to revive the ergostar as a viable central engine for short gamma-ray bursts, a role long relegated to black holes with accretion disks. It claims that if a binary neutron star merger remnant is made of strangeon matter, then uniformly rotating, dynamically stable configurations with an ergoregion exist across a wide range of equations of state. The extractable rotational energy from these configurations is on the order of 0.01 solar masses times c^2, roughly 10^52 erg, a typical sGRB budget. This matters because it offers an alternative to the black hole–disk paradigm and implies that exotic-matter remnants could be central to high-energy astrophysics.

Core claim

The central claim is that strangeon matter, modeled by a two-parameter Lennard-Jones-type equation of state, supports a large and robust parameter space of dynamically stable, uniformly rotating ergostars. The paper identifies stable configurations by intersecting the ergoregion condition g_tt > 0 with the turning-point stability boundary on constant angular momentum sequences, then maps this domain against an empirical angular momentum–mass relation for merger remnants. In the most observationally compatible case, a ~2.6 solar-mass remnant consistent with GW170817 can release up to ~0.02 solar masses of rotational energy; across a broader survey, the maximum extractable energy falls near 0.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the strangeon equation of state, derived from a Lennard-Jones pair potential between quark clusters ('strangeons') and parameterized by a potential depth per quark and a surface baryon density. This EOS is stiff at high density, yielding high maximum masses. Stability is assessed with the turning-point criterion of Friedman–Ipser–Sorkin, which locates the onset of secular instability at the mass maximum of constant angular momentum sequences; the paper adopts this as a 'practical criterion' for dynamical stability, relying on the near-coincidence of secular and dynamical instability loci. Energy extraction is quantified along sequences of constant baryon mass, from a state o

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the turning-point criterion correctly identifies dynamically stable ergostars, and that the ergoregion superradiant instability does not destroy them before they release their energy.

What would settle it

A nonlinear numerical relativity simulation of a strangeon-matter ergostar with parameters from Table I would either confirm stability or show collapse/pulsation on a dynamical timescale; alternatively, computing the ergoregion superradiance growth time and finding it shorter than the ~10^52 erg extraction timescale for the same configuration would falsify the claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, BNS merger remnants made of strangeon matter can be long-lived, uniformly rotating reservoirs of ~10^52 erg, sufficient to power sGRBs and extended emission without invoking an accretion disk.
  • The GW170817-compatible case (M ≈ 2.6 M_sun) supports the idea that the post-merger object in such events could be a strangeon ergostar rather than a promptly collapsing black hole.
  • The nearly universal scaling relations for minimum-mass ergostars (tracking the TOV mass) make the prediction testable: detecting such a remnant would set a lower bound on the EOS's maximum mass.
  • Energy extraction of 0.01–0.05 M_sun would imprint a distinct post-merger gravitational-wave signature that next-generation observatories could search for.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension is to replace the turning-point proxy with full nonlinear dynamical evolutions; the stable domain may shrink or shift, and this is the most likely place for the conclusion to break.
  • The paper does not address the ergoregion superradiant instability known to afflict horizonless ultracompact rotators; testing whether its growth time exceeds the extraction timescale is a concrete next step.
  • The paper accounts for baryonic mass loss only in a static way (constant baryon mass sequences), not dynamically; modeling the actual Penrose process could alter the accessible energy budget.
  • If strangeon ergostars power sGRBs, then the observed maximum isotropic energy of sGRBs would constrain the strangeon EOS: models yielding too little extractable energy would struggle with the brightest bursts.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs uniformly rotating equilibrium models of strangeon-matter stars using the two-parameter phenomenological EOS of Yuan et al. (2019) and the rns code. It identifies ergostars via g_tt > 0 and delineates a 'stable ergostar region' using the turning-point criterion along constant-angular-momentum sequences. For each of twelve representative EOS parameter pairs, the maximum extractable energy is estimated as the gravitational-mass difference along a constant-baryon-mass path ending at the minimum-mass stable ergostar. The authors report a robust parameter space of dynamically stable ergostars with extractable energies of order 0.01 M_sun c^2, sufficient for an sGRB, and highlight a GW170817-consistent case. The central claim is that strangeon matter supports such ergostars even without differential rotation.

Significance. If the central claim held, this would provide a concrete exotic-matter pathway to a long-lived, ergoregion-driven central engine for short gamma-ray bursts, extending prior results that found stable ergostars only with strong differential rotation or extreme EOSs. The paper is systematic, uses a public equilibrium code, and presents scaling relations that make the parameter survey understandable. The GW170817 comparison is a useful anchor. However, the headline 'dynamically stable' rests on a secular stability proxy, the generic ergoregion instability of horizonless rotators is not considered, and the extractable-energy result is an equilibrium bound rather than a modeled extraction process. These gaps are load-bearing, so the significance is conditional on their resolution.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III.B and Figs. 5–10] The stability claim is made via the turning-point criterion: the maximum-mass locus on constant-J sequences is equated with the dynamical instability boundary, citing refs [43,51]. This is problematic for two reasons. First, the turning-point theorem concerns secular instability for axisymmetric modes, not dynamical instability for nonaxisymmetric modes; the cited support for near-coincidence is incomplete (ref [43] is an empirical merger-remnant relation, not an instability-coincidence study). Second, and more importantly, the paper never addresses the ergoregion instability that is generic for horizonless ultracompact objects with g_tt > 0. Such objects are superradiant amplifiers, and without an event horizon to absorb the amplified modes, linear perturbations grow. For compactnesses near the ergostar threshold and masses up to ~4.4 M_sun, the e-folding time could be short compared wi
  2. [§III.C, Eq. (9)] The 'extractable energy' ΔE = M_initial − M_final is a difference between equilibrium configurations along a constant-baryon-mass sequence. It is an energy budget or upper bound, not a calculation of energy extraction via the Penrose process or any other mechanism. No model is given for how the angular momentum and baryonic mass are actually lost, how the path is realized dynamically, or what fraction of the mass difference can be radiated as a relativistic jet. The abstract's statement that the result holds 'even when accounting for baryonic mass variations (e.g., mass ejection and particle capture during the Penrose process)' is not reflected in the calculation, which explicitly holds baryon mass fixed. At minimum, the paper should label ΔE as the maximum possible energy release under the constant-baryon-mass assumption and remove or justify the baryonic-variation claim.
  3. [§II, Eqs. (3)–(4)] The EOS is acausal at high densities: c_s^2 = dP/dρ can exceed 1. The authors argue that this 'adiabatic sound speed' should be distinguished from the signal speed, citing classical potential models. This is a known debate, but for rapidly rotating supramassive configurations with central densities up to ~3.5×10^15 g/cm^3 (Table I), the equilibrium solutions and the deduced maximum masses may be quantitatively unreliable if the effective EOS is acausal in the region that determines the turning-point boundary. The paper should either restrict the parameter space to densities where c_s^2 ≤ 1, or provide a causality-corrected EOS, or demonstrate that the ergostar properties are insensitive to the acausal region. Without this, the reported M_TOV values and the stability boundary are open to question.
  4. [§III.C, bottom-right panel of Fig. 8 and Table I (case D)] The paper highlights the case (˜ϵ=0.1 MeV, n_sur=0.36 fm^-3) as 'fully compatible' with GW170817 and producing a stable ergostar remnant of M≈2.6 M_sun. However, this case has M_TOV=2.16 M_sun (Table I). A uniformly rotating supramassive star can exceed M_TOV, but the maximum mass increase for uniform rotation is typically ~20% for moderately stiff EOSs, placing 2.6 M_sun at the edge of plausibility; for an acausal EOS this margin is even less reliable. The paper should verify that this specific configuration is indeed supramassive but below the secular axisymmetric instability limit, and it should state the expected maximum uniform-rotation mass for this EOS. The current presentation glosses over a potentially important consistency check.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §I] The phrase 'dynamically stable' is used in the abstract and introduction before the stability analysis is presented. Consider using 'secularly stable according to the turning-point criterion' or adding a caveat early on.
  2. [§III.B, end of first paragraph] The sentence 'This feature provides a practical diagnostic...' is clear, but the term 'strictly confined' should be justified: the stable ergostar region is bounded by M_min-ergo and M_max-ergo only for the specific turning-point definition; a brief reminder would help.
  3. [§III.B, text near Eq. (8)] The empirical relation J_merger ≃ a M_tot − b is used with M_remnant ≈ M_tot, but the uncertainty in the coefficients (a,b) is not propagated. Adding a short discussion of how sensitive the intersection and energy estimates are to this approximation would strengthen the robustness claim.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption and legend] The red dashed line is labeled 'Jmerger' in the figure but described as 'empirical threshold for prompt collapse' in the caption. Please unify the terminology.
  5. [§III.C, first paragraph] Eq. (9) defines ΔE with units of mass; the text should consistently say 'ΔE in units of M_sun c^2' to avoid confusion. Also, the figure labels use '∆ Mmax' while the text uses '∆Emax' — please make these consistent.
  6. [Introduction and §IV] Minor language issues: 'ab-initial' should be 'ab initio'; 'The dynamic stability these solutions is analyzed' should be 'The dynamical stability of these solutions is analyzed'; 'indicate' should be 'indicates' in one place. Also, 'case 4' in the text refers to a specific Bayesian-fit case from Yuan et al. [39] but is not defined beyond the parameter values; a one-sentence description would help readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the ergostar energy budget and stability map are computed from an explicit EOS and equilibrium code, not fitted to the claimed result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The strangeon EOS is introduced explicitly in Sec. II via a Lennard-Jones potential and a stated two-parameter normalization (Eqs. 1-4), with constants and parameter ranges given openly. The equilibrium models are computed with the public rns code solving the Einstein equations for a stationary, axisymmetric spacetime, and the ergoregion condition g_tt > 0 (Eq. 7) is applied directly to the computed metric. Stability is assessed with the turning-point criterion, citing external references [32, 43, 51] for the secular-dynamical coincidence; this is an assumption about instability criteria, not an input that is renamed as a prediction. The extractable energy is defined as the gravitational-mass difference along constant-baryon-mass equilibrium sequences (Eq. 9), so the reported ΔE ~ 0.0055-0.051 M_sun values are emergent numerical outputs, not least-squares fits to the claimed sGRB energy budget. The EOS parameters are taken from a prior Bayesian analysis by overlapping authors [39], but that prior work is constrained by external NICER and GW170817 data, and the present paper's central claim—that strangeon matter supports stable ergostars with ~0.01 M_sun extractable energy—does not reduce to those fitted values by construction. Concerns about whether the turning-point criterion correctly captures dynamical stability or whether ergoregion instabilities were neglected are scientific-validity issues, not circularity. No step has been identified in which a fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction or in which the paper's own equations force the headline result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The load-bearing content sits on a two-parameter phenomenological EOS plus four modeling assumptions. Neither the EOS parameters nor the stability proxy are derived in this paper; the results inherit these choices.

free parameters (2)
  • epsilon_tilde (potential depth per quark) = 0.1, 0.61, 1, 3 MeV (sampled; 0.61 from Yuan+ Bayesian case 4)
    Controls EOS stiffness; chosen by hand to span soft/stiff models, not fit in this paper.
  • n_sur (surface baryon number density) = 0.1-0.36 fm^-3 sampled; 0.18 fm^-3 in case 4
    Sets the saturation density of the self-bound matter; chosen by hand over a range.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Strangeon matter, described by a Lennard-Jones two-body potential on a lattice (Eqs. 1-4), is a valid EOS for supranuclear matter.
    The entire ergostar survey inherits this unverified microphysical model; no first-principles QCD derivation is provided.
  • domain assumption The apparent superluminal adiabatic sound speed is not a physical signal speed, so acausal EOS branches are acceptable.
    Sec. II states this but does not enforce causality; equilibrium models may be affected at high density.
  • domain assumption The turning-point method locates the onset of dynamical instability (secular and dynamical loci nearly coincide).
    Sec. III.B uses this to map the "stable ergostar region"; not verified here by dynamical simulations.
  • domain assumption The Bauswein-Stergioulas empirical relation J_merger = a M_tot - b describes BNS remnant angular momentum and M_remnant ≈ M_tot.
    Used to judge astrophysical viability; taken from an external fit with no uncertainty propagated.
  • domain assumption Along an energy-extraction path the baryon mass is constant, so ΔE = M_initial - M_final is the released energy.
    Sec. III.C hypothesizes this path; Penrose-process mechanics, mass ejection, and particle capture are not modeled.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13964 in / 14861 out tokens · 157137 ms · 2026-08-03T12:38:52.904538+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The nature of the central engine powering short gamma-ray bursts (sGRBs) in binary neutron star (BNS) mergers remains a key open question in the era of multi-messenger astronomy. The ergostar hypothesis, that a rapidly rotating star with an ergoregion can act as a powerful energy source, offers an alternative explanation to the black hole-accretion disk paradigm. In this work, however, we examine this hypothesis using a phenomenological EOS of strangeon matter, i.e., condensed matter with nucleon-like units for three flavors of quarks. By constructing a large suite of uniformly rotating equilibrium models, we systematically investigate the parameter space of the stable ergostars and calculate their maximum extractable energy. We demonstrate that strangeon matter supports a vast and robust parameter space for dynamically stable ergostars, even without requiring differential rotation. We find that the extractable rotational energy from these configurations can be on the order of $0.01 M_\odot$, representing a massive energy reservoir, even when accounting for baryonic mass variations (e.g., mass ejection and particle capture during the Penrose process). Our results suggest that BNS merger remnants composed of exotic matter could play a crucial, previously underestimated role in high-energy astrophysics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.01949 by Enping Zhou, Haojia Xia, Hong-Bo Li, Ren-Xin Xu, Shichuan Chen.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Scaling relation between the angular momentum of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The total angular momentum as functions of the gravitational [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The gravitational mass versus the central density of SnS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Gravitational mass versus central density for a strangeon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Ergostar solutions for the strangeon matter EOS with a fixed potential depth per quark of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. To understand the radiative processes of pulsars and fast radio bursts with the FAST

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    FAST telescope observations are providing pivotal insights into the radiative processes of pulsars and fast radio bursts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    Brandt, J

    V.Savchenko, C.Ferrigno, E.Kuulkers, A.Bazzano, E.Bozzo, S. Brandt, J. Chenevez, T. J.-L. Courvoisier, R. Diehl, A. Domingo, L. Hanlon, E. Jourdain, A. von Kienlin, P. Lau- rent,F.Lebrun,A.Lutovinov,A.Martin-Carrillo,S.Mereghetti, L.Natalucci,J.Rodi,J.-P.Roques,R.Sunyaev, andP.Ubertini, The Astrophysical Journal Letters848, L15 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Savchenko, S

    V. Savchenko, S. Mereghetti, C. Ferrigno, E. Kuulkers, A. Baz- zano, E. Bozzo, T. J. L. Courvoisier, S. Brandt, R. Diehl, and L. Hanlon, (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society179, 433 (1977), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/179/3/433/9333653/mnras179-0433.pdf

    1977

  5. [5]

    Z. G. Dai and T. Lu, Physical Review Letters81, 4301–4304 (1998)

    1998

  6. [6]

    Zhang and P

    B. Zhang and P. Mészáros, The Astrophysical Journal552, L35–L38 (2001)

    2001

  7. [7]

    H.-J. Lü, B. Zhang, W.-H. Lei, Y. Li, and P. D. Lasky, The Astrophysical Journal805, 89 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    S. S. Komissarov, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society350, 427–448 (2004)

    2004

  9. [9]

    S. S. Komissarov, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society359, 801–808 (2005)

    2005

  10. [10]

    Penrose, General Relativity and Gravitation7, 1141 (2002)

    R. Penrose, General Relativity and Gravitation7, 1141 (2002)

    2002

  11. [12]

    X. Lai, C. Xia, and R. Xu, Advances in Physics X8, 2137433 (2023), arXiv:2210.01501 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [13]

    C. Xia, X. Lai, and R. Xu, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2511.01146 (2025), arXiv:2511.01146 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [14]

    Witten, Phys

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

    1984

  14. [15]

    Alcock, E

    C. Alcock, E. Farhi, and A. Olinto, ApJ310, 261 (1986)

    1986

  15. [16]

    Xu, ApJ596, L59 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302165

    R.-X. Xu, ApJ596, L59 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  16. [17]

    X.Y.LaiandR.X.Xu,J.Phys.Conf.Ser.861,012027(2017), arXiv:1701.08463 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [18]

    R. X. Xu and Y. J. Guo, in11th Rencontres du Vietnam: Hot Topics in General Relativity and Gravitation(2017) pp. 119– 146, arXiv:1601.05607 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [20]

    W.-L. Yuan, C. Huang, C. Zhang, E. Zhou, and R. Xu, PRD 111, 063033 (2025), arXiv:2411.14938 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [21]

    Demorest, T

    P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, and J. Hes- sels, Nature467, 1081 (2010), arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  20. [22]

    J.Antoniadiset al.,Science340,6131(2013),arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [23]

    E. P. Zhou, J. G. Lu, H. Tong, and R. X. Xu, MNRAS443, 2705 (2014), arXiv:1404.2793 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  22. [24]

    R.-X. Xu, D. J. Tao, and Y. Yang, MNRAS373, L85 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0607106

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  23. [25]

    S.Dai,L.Li, andR.Xu,ScienceChinaPhysics,Mechanics,and Astronomy54, 1541 (2011), arXiv:1008.2568 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  24. [26]

    H.-B. Li, Y. Kang, Z. Hu, L. Shao, C.-J. Xia, and R.-X. Xu, MNRAS527, 855 (2023), arXiv:2309.09847 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [27]

    W.-Y. Wang, C. Zhang, E. Zhou, X. Liu, J. Niu, Z. Zhou, H. Gao, J. Liu, R. Xu, and B. Zhang, RAA24, 105012 (2024), arXiv:2405.07152 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [28]

    Z. Li, Z. Qu, L. Chen, Y. Guo, J. Qu, and R. Xu, ApJ798, 56 (2015), arXiv:1405.3438 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  27. [29]

    W.Wang,J.Lu,H.Tong,M.Ge,Z.Li,Y.Men, andR.Xu,ApJ 837, 81 (2017), arXiv:1603.08288 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [30]

    W.-Y. Wang, Y. Feng, X.-Y. Lai, Y.-Y. Li, J.-G. Lu, X. Chen, and R.-X. Xu, RAA18, 082 (2018), arXiv:1705.03763 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [31]

    Li, S.-J

    H.-B. Li, S.-J. Gao, X.-D. Li, and R.-X. Xu, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.13732 (2025), arXiv:2509.13732 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [32]

    J.L.Friedman,J.R.Ipser, andR.D.Sorkin,Astrophys.J.325, 722 (1988)

    1988

  31. [33]

    R. X. Xu, The Astrophysical Journal596, L59–L62 (2003)

    2003

  32. [34]

    X. Y. Lai and R. X. Xu, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society: Letters398, L31–L35 (2009)

    2009

  33. [35]

    Y.Gao,X.-Y.Lai,L.Shao, andR.-X.Xu,MonthlyNoticesofthe Royal Astronomical Society (2021), 10.1093/mnras/stab3181

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3181 2021

  34. [36]

    H.-B.Li,Y.Gao,L.Shao,R.-X.Xu, andR.Xu,Mon.Not.Roy. Astron. Soc.516, 6172 (2022), arXiv:2206.09407 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [37]

    C.Zhang,Y.Gao,C.-J.Xia, andR.Xu,PhysicalReviewD108 (2023), 10.1103/physrevd.108.063002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.063002 2023

  36. [38]

    Zhang, Y

    C. Zhang, Y. Gao, C.-J. Xia, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D108, 123031 (2023)

    2023

  37. [39]

    W.-L.Yuan,C.Huang,C.Zhang,E.Zhou, andR.Xu,Physical Review D111(2025), 10.1103/physrevd.111.063033

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.063033 2025

  38. [40]

    S. A. Bludman and M. A. Ruderman, Phys. Rev.170, 1176 (1968)

    1968

  39. [41]

    Caporaso and K

    G. Caporaso and K. Brecher, Phys. Rev. D20, 1823 (1979)

    1979

  40. [42]

    Stergioulas and J

    N. Stergioulas and J. L. Friedman, The Astrophysical Journal 444, 306 (1995)

    1995

  41. [43]

    Bauswein and N

    A. Bauswein and N. Stergioulas, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society471, 4956–4965 (2017)

    2017

  42. [44]

    D. J. Reardon, M. Bailes, R. M. Shannon, C. Flynn, J. Askew, N. D. R. Bhat, Z.-C. Chen, M. Curyło, Y. Feng, G. B. Hobbs, A. Kapur, M. Kerr, X. Liu, R. N. Manchester, R. Mandow, S. Mishra, C. J. Russell, M. Shamohammadi, L. Zhang, and A. Zic, The Astrophysical Journal Letters971, L18 (2024)

    2024

  43. [45]

    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, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewenstein, R. M. Ludlam, C. B. Mark- wardt,T.Okajima,C.Prescod-Weinstein,R.A.Remillard,M.T. Wolff, E. Fonseca, H. T. Cromartie, M. Kerr, T. T. Pennucci, A.Pa...

    2021

  44. [46]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, P. S. Ray, R. M. Lud- lam, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, C. L. Baker, A. V. Bilous, D. Chakrabarty, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, S. M. Morsink, and T. E. Strohmayer, The Astrophysical Journal Letters887, L21 (2019)

    2019

  45. [47]

    S.Vinciguerra,T.Salmi,A.L.Watts,D.Choudhury,T.E.Riley, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, Y. Kini, S. Guillot, D. Chakrabarty, W.C.G.Ho,D.Huppenkothen,S.M.Morsink,Z.Wadiasingh, and M. T. Wolff, The Astrophysical Journal961, 62 (2024)

    2024

  46. [48]

    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, D.J.Reardon,R.A.Remillard,A.V.Bilous,D.Huppenkothen, J.M.Lattimer,N.Rutherford,Z.Arzoumanian,K.C.Gendreau, S. M. Morsink, and W. C. G. Ho, The Astrophysical Journal Letters971, L20 (2024)

    2024

  47. [49]

    Rutherford, M

    N. Rutherford, M. Mendes, I. Svensson, A. Schwenk, A. L. Watts, K. Hebeler, J. Keller, C. Prescod-Weinstein, D. Choud- hury,G.Raaijmakers,T.Salmi,P.Timmerman,S.Vinciguerra, S.Guillot, andJ.M.Lattimer,TheAstrophysicalJournalLetters 10 971, L19 (2024)

    2024

  48. [50]

    Abbottet al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters896, L44 (2020)

    R. Abbottet al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters896, L44 (2020)

    2020

  49. [51]

    Takami, L

    K. Takami, L. Rezzolla, and S. Yoshida, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters416, L1–L5 (2011)

    2011

  50. [52]

    A.Tsokaros,M.Ruiz,L.Sun,S.L.Shapiro, andK.Ury ¯u,Physi- calReviewLetters123(2019),10.1103/physrevlett.123.231103

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.231103 2019

  51. [53]

    Tsokaros, M

    A. Tsokaros, M. Ruiz, and S. L. Shapiro, Physical Review D 101(2020), 10.1103/physrevd.101.064069

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.064069 2020

  52. [54]

    M.Ruiz,A.Tsokaros,S.L.Shapiro,K.C.Nelli, andS.Qunell, Physical Review D102(2020), 10.1103/physrevd.102.104022

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.104022 2020

  53. [55]

    Troja, H

    E. Troja, H. van Eerten, B. Zhang, G. Ryan, L. Piro, R. Ricci, B. O’Connor, M. H. Wieringa, S. B. Cenko, and T. Sakamoto, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498, 5643 (2020), arXiv:2006.01150 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  54. [56]

    Z. Li, Z. Chen, Y. Huang, Y. Lu, and J. Liu, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.14124 (2025), arXiv:2509.14124 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025