Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Anisotropic neutron stars by gravitational decoupling

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Extending a known perfect-fluid neutron-star model with minimal geometric deformation gives physically acceptable anisotropic stars whose stability against collapse and cracking decreases as compactness increases.

desk verdict Routine but competent MGD application; the headline stability ordering is real only for the chosen mimic closure, not for the θ-sector at large. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08194 v1 pith:CY7VBQCH submitted 2019-08-22 gr-qc

Victor Torres , Ernesto Contreras This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5583C1583C75 PACS 04.20.-q04.40.Dg
keywords anisotropicneutronstarsgravitationaldecouplingminimalgeometricdeformationmimicconstraintadiabaticindexcrackingcompactpressureanisotropy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper extends a known perfect-fluid interior solution for a neutron star to an anisotropic fluid using minimal geometric deformation, and tests whether the resulting models remain physically viable for four real compact objects. It finds that the deformed solution keeps all standard acceptability conditions—positive monotonic density and pressures, dominant and strong energy conditions, subluminal sound speeds—for the objects considered. Its main conclusion is that stability, judged by the adiabatic index and by resistance to gravitational cracking, holds for the least compact objects and fails for the more compact ones at larger deformation parameter.

What carries the argument

The Minimal Geometric Deformation (MGD) decoupling method: the radial metric is written $e^{-\lambda}=\mu+\alpha f$ while the temporal metric is left unchanged, and the anisotropic source $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ is solved from the resulting quasi-Einstein equations. The mimic constraint $\theta^1_1=p$ turns the junction condition into an algebraic equation for the deformation function $f$, giving a closed deformed solution. The stability analysis then uses the adiabatic index $\gamma=\frac{\tilde\rho+\tilde p_r}{\tilde p_r}\frac{d\tilde p_r}{d\tilde\rho}$ and the cracking condition $-1\le \frac{d\tilde p_\perp}{d\tilde\rho}-\frac{d\tilde p_r}{d\tilde\rho}\le 0$.

What would settle it

Compute the tidal Love number of the deformed solution for PSR J0348+0432 at the $\alpha$ values where the paper claims stability, then compare with gravitational-wave measurements of neutron-star tides: the stability verdict stands only if the model's prediction falls inside the measured band. A cheaper check is to redo the adiabatic-index and cracking analysis with a different closure replacing $\theta^1_1=p$; if the low-compactness stability ordering flips, it is an artifact of the mimic constraint.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that applying minimal geometric deformation with the mimic constraint $\theta^1_1=p$ to the isotropic seed solution of Ref. [68] produces an anisotropic neutron-star solution that is physically acceptable for all four compactness values tested, and whose stability is governed by compactness. For compactness $u=0.13$ (SAX J1808.4-3658) and $u=0.15478$ (Her X-1), the adiabatic index stays above $4/3$ and the cracking indicator stays within the stable window for every deformation parameter $\alpha$ considered. For $u=0.2035$ (Cen X-3) and $u=0.229365$ (PSR J0348+0432), the adiabatic index drops below $4/3$ for the largest $\alpha$ values and the cracking condition is violated at all $\alpha$ studied. The paper states this conclusion directly: the most stable anisotropic models are those with the smallest compactness parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the mimic constraint $\theta^1_1=p$, which fixes the geometric deformation by equating the anisotropic source's radial stress to the seed pressure; it is chosen so the exterior junction condition is automatic, but it is not derived from microphysics, and real neutron-star matter need not obey it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any of the four objects, the deformed model can describe anisotropy without sacrificing positive densities, positive pressures, the dominant and strong energy conditions, or causality for all values of $\alpha$ considered.
  • Less compact stars tolerate the deformation: SAX J1808.4-3658 and Her X-1 remain stable by both the adiabatic-index and cracking criteria across all $\alpha$, while Cen X-3 and PSR J0348+0432 do not.
  • The instability threshold moves with compactness: Cen X-3 and PSR J0348+0432 violate the $\gamma\ge 4/3$ condition only for the largest $\alpha$ values, but violate the cracking condition for every $\alpha$.
  • The paper reports convection instability for all models, including the isotropic case $\alpha=0$, so anisotropy does not restore convective stability.
  • Increasing the deformation parameter $\alpha$ raises the central density and lowers the effective pressures, driving the more compact models across the stability boundaries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: Because $\theta^1_1=p$ is one closure among many, the clean compactness-stability ordering is likely specific to this closure; repeating the analysis with an alternative closure such as $\theta^0_0=\rho$ would reveal which features are generic.
  • Editorial inference: If the trend holds, neutron-star observations with measured masses and radii could constrain $\alpha$: any star denser than Cen X-3 that shows no sign of cracking would rule out the larger deformation parameters for this seed model.
  • Editorial inference: The model's predicted anisotropy changes the star's tidal Love number, so gravitational-wave measurements of tidal deformability could indirectly test whether the mimic constraint is a good description of real neutron-star matter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the Minimal Geometric Deformation (MGD) decoupling method to the isotropic perfect-fluid neutron star solution of Estevez-Delgado et al. [68], imposing the mimic constraint θ_1^1 = p (Eq. 27) to fix the deformation function f (Eq. 38). With the dimensionless parametrization r = xR, aR^2 = ω and the compactness relation (Eq. 37), the authors analyze the deformed solution for four observed compact objects (SAX J1808.4-3658, Her X-1, Cen X-3, PSR J0348+0432). They examine positivity and monotonicity of the effective density and pressures, anisotropy, energy conditions, causality, adiabatic index (Eq. 42), convection (Eq. 43), and gravitational cracking (Eq. 44). The paper concludes that the lower-compactness models are the most stable and that the MGD-deformed solution satisfies the same physical requirements as the isotropic seed.

Significance. The work is a standard MGD application with a concrete seed solution and four astrophysical compactness inputs. If the stability ordering is correct, the paper provides a useful worked example of how pressure anisotropy from gravitational decoupling shifts neutron-star stability. The construction is self-contained and the criteria are standard, and Eq. (37) gives a clean relation between the seed parameter and the compactness. The main caveat is that the conclusion is tied to the particular mimic closure; without checking alternative closures or clearly restricting the claim, the physical generality asserted in the abstract and conclusions is not established. Reproducibility is also limited by the absence of tabulated values for the seed parameter ω.

major comments (4)
  1. [§V.D, §VI, abstract] The central stability claim is obtained only under the mimic constraint θ_1^1 = p (Eq. 27). The junction condition (Eq. 26) does not fix the deformation uniquely: since p(R) = 0, any closure θ_1^1 = c p with constant c yields the same exterior matching, but different f from Eq. (18), different γ in Eq. (42), and different values of d p̃_t/dρ̃ − d p̃_r/dρ̃ in Eq. (44). The manuscript does not test this closure dependence, so the statement that 'the most stable anisotropic models are those with the smallest compactness parameters' overstates what has been shown. A test with alternative closures, or a qualified statement limiting the result to the mimic branch, is required.
  2. [§VI] The final remarks contain a sentence that directly contradicts the body of the paper: 'the configuration is stable for the most compact object considered and unstable for the other two models.' Section V.F and Fig. 11 show that the two most compact models, Cen X-3 (u = 0.2035) and PSR J0348+0432 (u = 0.229365), violate Eq. (44), while the least compact models are stable. This sentence must be corrected, otherwise the paper's main conclusion is internally inconsistent.
  3. [§IV] The parameter ω, obtained from Eq. (37), is an input to the deformation f in Eq. (38) and therefore to every quantity plotted in Figs. 1–11, but its numerical values for the four compactness parameters in Table I are never reported. Independent reproduction of the results requires solving Eq. (37), and the choice of root can matter for the plotted profiles. The authors should tabulate the ω values used and, ideally, provide the explicit matter-sector expressions or data files.
  4. [§V.B] The text states that the dominant energy condition is satisfied and cites both conditions (39) and (40), but Fig. 5 is explicitly labeled only for the radial component ρ̃ − p̃_r. The tangential condition ρ̃ − p̃_⊥ is not shown, so the DEC verification is incomplete as presented. The authors should either plot the tangential combination or state clearly that only the radial DEC was checked.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 11] The caption begins with 'for α = −0.1' while the legend lists α = 0, 0.04, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3; this appears to be a typographical artifact and should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (42)] The adiabatic index is defined with the deformed density and radial pressure; the paper should clarify whether the standard γ ≥ 4/3 threshold remains directly applicable to anisotropic fluids or whether a modified bound is needed.
  3. [Table I] The compactness values are given to several significant figures, but the corresponding ω solutions from Eq. (37) are not reported; a short table or the inverse relation would improve transparency.
  4. [References] Several references are cited only as arXiv preprints, including the seed solution [68]; please add published journal details where they exist.
  5. [Figures] The figures are reproduced at low resolution and the line styles for different α values are difficult to distinguish; higher-resolution figures with clear legends would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MGD-deformed solution and stability conclusions are computed from an external seed, an explicit algebraic closure, and standard stability criteria, with no fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained given its stated inputs. The seed perfect-fluid solution and its compactness values are imported from external references [68] and [59]; the MGD deformation is implemented through the explicit geometric deformation (11)-(12) and the quasi-Einstein equations (17)-(19); the anisotropic sector is closed by the mimic constraint theta^1_1 = p (Eq. 27), which is an openly stated algebraic choice made so that the junction condition (Eq. 26) is automatically satisfied. The decoupling function f is then obtained by direct substitution into Eq. (18), yielding Eq. (38), and the effective density, pressures, and gradients used in the adiabatic index (Eq. 42) and cracking condition (Eq. 44) are computed from those closed expressions. No output quantity is fed back as an input, and no fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction. The stability ordering among SAX J1808.4-3658, Her X-1, Cen X-3, and PSR J0348+0432 is a graphical consequence of the resulting profiles for the chosen values of alpha, not a restatement of any prior fitted value. The mimic constraint is ad hoc and may limit the robustness of the conclusions, but arbitrariness of an ansatz is not circularity under the criteria used here. The paper contains many self-citations, but they are ordinary references to the MGD literature (e.g., [34] for the method, [52], [57], [58] for related applications) and none of the load-bearing steps reduces to an unverified self-citation. In particular, the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work to forbid alternative closures. The claimed result is therefore not equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no specific circular reduction can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on the MGD decomposition, the mimic constraint, and literature compactness values; it introduces no new physical entities.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (MGD deformation parameter) = 0, 0.04, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 (not fitted)
    Introduced in Eq. (12) to control the geometric deformation. It is varied by hand, with no observational or theoretical constraint; the stability conclusions depend on the chosen range.
  • omega (seed dimensionless parameter) = solved from Eq. (37) for each u; values not tabulated
    The seed solution parameter controlling compactness. For each star, u is fixed from Table I and omega is obtained by inverting u=omega(3+4omega)/(5+15omega+12omega^2). It is an input that the paper does not tabulate.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Einstein field equations with total energy-momentum decomposed as perfect fluid plus theta-mu-nu source
    Eqs. (1)-(2) define the MGD setup; this is the standard gravitational-decoupling decomposition from the MGD literature.
  • ad hoc to paper Mimic constraint theta^1_1 = p
    Eq. (27) is chosen to satisfy the junction condition Eq. (26) automatically. It is not derived from microphysics and it determines the deformation f, so all anisotropic properties depend on it.
  • domain assumption Compactness parameters for the four stars taken from Table I of Ref. [59]
    Table I supplies u values for SAX J1808.4-3658, Her X-1, Cen X-3, and PSR J0348+0432. These are treated as fixed inputs without error bars or primary observational citations.
  • standard math Schwarzschild exterior matching conditions (continuity of first and second fundamental forms)
    Eqs. (23)-(25) give the junction conditions used to close the system; this is standard practice for stellar interior solutions.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic index criterion gamma >= 4/3
    Eq. (42) and Sec. V.D use the perfect-fluid stability bound for an anisotropic fluid; the anisotropic generalization is not discussed.
  • domain assumption Gravitational cracking criterion -1 <= dp_tilde_t/drho_tilde - dp_tilde_r/drho_tilde <= 0
    Eq. (44) is taken from Abreu et al. [71] as a sufficient condition to avoid cracking; the paper adopts it without further derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropic neutron stars by gravitational decoupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CY7VBQCH

@misc{pith2026190808194,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropic neutron stars by gravitational decoupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CY7VBQCH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08194}
}
read the original abstract

In this work we obtain an anisotropic neutron star solution by gravitational decoupling starting from a perfect fluid configuration which has been used to model the compact object PSR J0348+0432. Additionally, we consider the same solution to model the Binary Pulsar SAX J1808.4-3658 and X-ray Binaries Her X-1 and Cen X-3 ones. We study the acceptability conditions and obtain that the MGD--deformed solution obey the same physical requirements as its isotropic counterpart. Finally, we conclude that the most stable solutions, according to the adiabatic index and gravitational cracking criterion, are those with the smallest compactness parameters, namely SAX J1808.4-3658 and Her X-1.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08194 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Effective radial pressure ˜p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Effective tangential pressure ˜p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5: Dominant energy condition for the radial compo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Strong energy condition, for a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Adiabatic index, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Traverse sound velocity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Second derivative of the density, ˜ρ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Coherent quantum hairy black holes from gravitational decoupling: regularity, geodesics, and scalar ringdown

    hep-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Gaussian-smearing the gravitational-decoupling hairy black hole produces a regular core and modified photon rings, lensing, and a claimed but absent ringdown spectrum.

  2. Isotropization and change of complexity by gravitational decoupling

    gr-qc 2019-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A gravitational decoupling technique that continuously isotropizes anisotropic stellar solutions and generates new solutions with controlled complexity factor, demonstrated on two exact examples.

  3. Gravitational decoupling and regular hairy black holes: Geodesic stability, quasinormal modes, and thermodynamic properties

    gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    For the regular hairy black hole metric (29), larger β shrinks the ISCO and photon sphere, reduces QNM damping, and adds a canonical-ensemble stable phase.

  4. Minimal Geometric Deformation in a Reissner-Nordstr\"om background

    gr-qc 2019-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    New exact Reissner-Nordström black hole solutions are built via minimal geometric deformation with a linear equation of state in the added source.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [68]

    the authors fixed the compactness parameter using data associated to PSR J0348+0432. IV. ANISOTROPIC NEUTRON ST AR BY MGD In what follows, we shall obtain the anisotropic solution implementing the mimic constraint studied in the pre- vious section. More precisely, from Eq. (27), we ob- tain f = −x2ω ( x2ω + 1 )( x2ω ( 2x2ω ( 36x2ω + 95 ) + 167 ) + 50 ) (4x...

    work page

  2. [1]

    and for a long time isotropic solutions have been broadly considered as suitable interior models of com- pact objects (see, for example, [2] and references therein). However, very few of these solutions can be considered as physically relevant because they violate some of the ele- mentary conditions that a realistic solution has to satisfy (for a list of ...

    arXiv 1908

  3. [2]

    controls

    (10) Note that, at this point, the decomposition (2) seems as a simple separation of the constituents of the matter sec- tor. What is more, given the non–linearity of Einstein’s equations, such a decomposition does not lead to a decou- pling of two set of equations, one for each source involved. However, contrary to the broadly belief, the decoupling is p...

    work page

  4. [3]

    (20) which is a linear combination of Eqs

    = 0. (20) which is a linear combination of Eqs. (17), (18) and (19). In this sense, there is no exchange of energy– momentum tensor between the perfect fluid and the anisotropic source and henceforth interaction is purely gravitational. As explained in previous sections, the MGD has been suc- cessfully used to extend isotropic solutions to anisotropic doma...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Lemaitre, Ann

    G. Lemaitre, Ann. Soc. Sci. Bruxelles, Ser. 153, 51 (1933)

    work page 1933

  6. [5]

    Schwarzschild, Sitz

    K. Schwarzschild, Sitz. Deut. Akad. Wiss. Berlin K1. Math. Phys 1916, 189 (1916)

    work page 1916

  7. [6]

    Delgaty and K

    M. Delgaty and K. Lake, Comput. Phys. Commun. 115, 395 (1998)

    work page 1998

  8. [7]

    B. V. Ivanov, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 738 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 75 references
  1. [8]

    Herrera, Phys.Lett

    L. Herrera, Phys.Lett. A165, 206 1992

    1992

  2. [9]

    Bowers and E

    R. Bowers and E. Liang, Astrophys. J. 188, 657 (1974)

    1974

  3. [10]

    Cosenza, M., Herrera, L., Esculpi, M., Witten, L, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 22, 118 (1981)

    1981

  4. [11]

    Cosenza, M., Herrera, L., Esculpi, M., Witten, L, Phys. Rev. D 25, 2527 (1982)

    1982

  5. [12]

    Herrera and N.O

    L. Herrera and N.O. Santos, Phys. Rep. 286, 53 (1997)

    1997

  6. [13]

    Bondi, Mon

    H. Bondi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 262, 1088 (1993). 8

    1993

  7. [14]

    Barreto, Astrophys

    W. Barreto, Astrophys. Space Sci. 201, 191 (1993)

    1993

  8. [15]

    Mart´ ınez, D

    J. Mart´ ınez, D. Pav´ on, and L. N´ u˜ nez, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc. 271, 463 (1994)

    1994

  9. [16]

    Herrera, A

    L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, J.Ospino, and E. Fuenmayor, J. Math. Phys. 42, 2129 (2001)

    2001

  10. [17]

    Herrera, A

    L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, J. Hern´ andez-Pastora and N.O. Santos, Phys. Lett. A 237, 113 (1998)

    1998

  11. [18]

    Bondi, Mon

    H. Bondi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 302, 337 (1999)

    1999

  12. [19]

    Hern´ andez, L

    H. Hern´ andez, L. N´ u˜ nez, and U.Percoco, Class. Quantum Grav. 16, 897 (1999)

    1999

  13. [20]

    Contreras, E

    E. Contreras, E. Fuenmayor and P. Bargue˜ no, arXiv: 1905.05378

    1905 arXiv

  14. [21]

    P´ erez Mart´ ınez, H.P

    A. P´ erez Mart´ ınez, H.P. Rojas, and H.M. Cuesta, Eur. Phys. J. C 29, 111 (2003)

    2003

  15. [22]

    Herrera, J

    L. Herrera, J. Ospino and A. Di Prisco, Phys. Rev. D 77, 027502 (2008)

    2008

  16. [23]

    Hern´ andez, L

    H. Hern´ andez, L. N´ u˜ nez, A. V´ azques, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 883 (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    Casadio, J

    R. Casadio, J. Ovalle. Phys. Lett. B 715, 251 (2012)

    2012

  18. [25]

    J. Ovalle. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 23, 3247 (2008)

    2008

  19. [26]

    J. Ovalle. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 18, 837 (2009)

    2009

  20. [27]

    J. Ovalle. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 25, 3323 (2010)

    2010

  21. [28]

    Casadio, J

    R. Casadio, J. Ovalle. Class. Quantum Grav. 32, 215020 (2015)

    2015

  22. [29]

    Ovalle, F

    J. Ovalle, F. Linares. Phys. Rev. D 88, 104026 (2013)

    2013

  23. [30]

    Ovalle, F

    J. Ovalle, F. Linares, A. Pasqua, A. Sotomayor. Class. Quantum Grav. 30,175019 (2013)

    2013

  24. [31]

    Quantum Grav

    R Casadio, J Ovalle, R da Rocha, Class. Quantum Grav. 31, 045015 (2014)

    2014

  25. [32]

    R. T. Cavalcanti, A. Goncalves da Silva, R. da Rocha. Class. Quantum Grav. 33, 215007(2016)

    2016

  26. [33]

    Ovalle, L.A

    J. Ovalle, L.A. Gergely, R. Casadio. Class. Quantum Grav. 32, 045015 (2015)

    2015

  27. [34]

    Casadio, J

    R. Casadio, J. Ovalle, R. da Rocha. EPL 110, 40003 (2015)

    2015

  28. [35]

    J. Ovalle. Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 41, 1660132 (2016)

    2016

  29. [36]

    da Rocha

    R. da Rocha. Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 355 (2017)

    2017

  30. [37]

    Casadio, R

    R. Casadio, R. da Rocha. Phys. Lett. B 763, 434 (2016)

    2016

  31. [38]

    J. Ovalle. Phys. Rev. D 95, 104019 (2017)

    2017

  32. [39]

    da Rocha

    R. da Rocha. Phys. Rev. D 95, 124017 (2017)

    2017

  33. [40]

    Estrada, F

    M. Estrada, F. Tello-Ortiz. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133, 453 (2018)

    2018

  34. [41]

    Casadio, P

    R. Casadio, P. Nicolini, R. da Rocha. Class. Quantum Grav. 35, 185001 (2018)

    2018

  35. [42]

    Ovalle, R

    J. Ovalle, R. Casadio, R. da Rocha, A. Sotomayor. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 122 (2018)

    2018

  36. [43]

    Ovalle, R

    J. Ovalle, R. Casadio, R. da Rocha, A. Sotomayor and Z. Stuchlik, EPL 124, 20004 (2018)

    2018

  37. [44]

    Sharif, S

    M. Sharif, S. Sadiq, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 410 (2018)

    2018

  38. [45]

    Ovalle, R

    J. Ovalle, R. Casadio, R. da Rocha, A. Sotomayor, Z. Stuchlik, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 960 (2018)

    2018

  39. [46]

    Las Heras, P

    C. Las Heras, P. Leon. Fortschr. Phys. 66, 1800036 (2018)

    2018

  40. [47]

    Gabbanelli, A

    L. Gabbanelli, A. Rinc´ on, C. Rubio. Eur. Phys. J. C 78 370 (2018)

    2018

  41. [48]

    Fernandes-Silva, R

    A. Fernandes-Silva, R. da Rocha. Eur. Phys.J. C 78, 271 (2018)

    2018

  42. [49]

    Sharif, S

    M. Sharif, S. Saba, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 921(2018)

    2018

  43. [50]

    Sharif, S

    M. Sharif, S. Sadiq, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133, 245 (2018)

    2018

  44. [51]

    Fernandes-Silva, A

    A. Fernandes-Silva, A. J. Ferreira-Martins, R. da Rocha. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 631 (2018)

    2018

  45. [52]

    Contreras, Eur

    E. Contreras, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 678 (2018)

    2018

  46. [53]

    Contreras and P

    E. Contreras and P. Bargue˜ no. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 558 (2018)

    2018

  47. [54]

    Morales, F

    E. Morales, F. Tello-Ortiz, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 841 (2018)

    2018

  48. [55]

    Morales, F

    E. Morales, F. Tello-Ortiz, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 618 (2018)

    2018

  49. [56]

    Estrada, R

    M. Estrada, R. Prado, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134, 168 (2019)

    2019

  50. [57]

    Panotopoulos, ´A

    G. Panotopoulos, ´A. Rinc´ on, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 851 (2018)

    2018

  51. [58]

    Ovalle, Phys

    J. Ovalle, Phys. Lett. B 788, 213 (2019)

    2019

  52. [59]

    Contreras and P

    E. Contreras and P. Bargue˜ no, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 985 (2018)

    2018

  53. [60]

    Contreras and P

    E. Contreras and P. Bargue˜ no, arXiv:1902.09495

    1902 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Contreras, Class

    E. Contreras, Class. Quantum Grav 36, 095004 (2019)

    2019

  55. [62]

    Contreras, ´A

    E. Contreras, ´A. Rinc´ on and P. Bargue˜ no, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 216 (2019)

    2019

  56. [63]

    Maurya, F

    S. Maurya, F. Tello, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 85 (2019)

    2019

  57. [64]

    Gabbanelli, J

    L. Gabbanelli, J. Ovalle, A. Sotomayor, Z. Stuchlik, R. Casadio, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 486 (2019)

    2019

  58. [65]

    Maurya, and F

    S. Maurya, and F. Tello-Ortiz, arXiv:1905.13519

    1905 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Las Heras, P

    C. Las Heras, P. Le´ on, arXiv: 1905.02380

    1905 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Estrada, arXiv:1905.12129

    M. Estrada, arXiv:1905.12129

    1905 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Ovalle, C

    J. Ovalle, C. Posada, Z. Stuchlik, arXiv:1905.12452

    1905 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Hensh and Z

    S. Hensh and Z. Stuchl´ ık, arXiv:1906.08368

    1906 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Linares and E

    F. Linares and E. Contreras, arXiv:1907.04892

    1907 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Estevez-Delgado, J

    G. Estevez-Delgado, J. Estevez-Delgado, N. Montelongo and M. Pineda. arxiv: 1807.1036

  65. [73]

    Moustakidis, Gen

    Ch.C. Moustakidis, Gen. Rel. and Grav. 49, 68 (2017)

    2017

  66. [74]

    Herrera, Phys

    L. Herrera, Phys. Lett. A 165, 206 (1992)

    1992

  67. [75]

    Abreu, H

    H. Abreu, H. Hern´ andez and L. Nu˜ nez, Class. Quantum Grav 24, 4631 (2007)

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.