pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.19761 · v1 · pith:M5G4NMTQnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc· nucl-th

Magnetized neutron stars: perturbative versus fully-numerical approaches

Debarati Chatterjee , Daw Guttmann , J\'er\^ome Novak , Micaela Oertel , Martin Jakob Steil This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 04:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qcnucl-th
keywords neutron starsmagnetarsmagnetic fieldsperturbative methodsnumerical relativitystellar deformationgeneral relativitygravitational waves
0
0 comments X

The pith

Perturbative methods accurately model neutron star deformation by magnetic fields at all observed strengths but break down above a few times 10^16 G.

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

This paper compares perturbative and full numerical approaches in general relativity for calculating how intense magnetic fields alter the shape and internal structure of neutron stars. The perturbative method assumes small deformations caused by dipole currents, while the numerical method solves the complete set of equations without that assumption. Both are tested by varying the polar magnetic field strength, the compactness of the star, and the equation of state, all under the restriction to purely poloidal field configurations. The perturbative results match well with the numerical ones for the field strengths actually observed in magnetars, yet deviate strongly at much higher values. The numerical code in turn loses resolution and produces unreliable deformation and quadrupole values when the field is relatively weak.

Core claim

We compare the perturbative approach of Konno et al. (1999), which assumes small deformations from dipole currents, with a fully numerical solution based on the LORENE library. Both compute the magnetic field distribution and stellar deformation for varying polar field values, compactness, and equations of state, restricted to purely poloidal fields. The perturbative method breaks down for very high polar magnetic field values typically above a few times 10^16 G, yet yields very good results for observed values even in magnetars. In contrast, the numerical code exhibits resolution problems for relatively low magnetic field values typically around 10^10 G, leading to imprecise computation of

What carries the argument

Direct comparison of the Konno-99 perturbative expansion, which assumes small deformations induced by dipole currents, against the full numerical solution of the Einstein-Maxwell system using the LORENE library, applied to poloidal magnetic fields.

If this is right

  • For polar fields up to 10^15 G typical of magnetars, the perturbative method supplies reliable values for stellar deformation and quadrupole moment.
  • Above a few times 10^16 G the full numerical solution must be used because the perturbative expansion ceases to be valid.
  • At field strengths near 10^10 G the numerical code requires substantially higher resolution to produce accurate deformation results.
  • The preferred computational method for a given neutron star model depends on the expected polar field strength.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If real neutron stars contain substantial toroidal field components, the validity ranges reported for each method would shift and require separate verification.
  • These findings can guide which technique to apply when estimating continuous gravitational wave signals from deformed magnetized stars.
  • Extending the same comparison to rotating configurations or mixed poloidal-toroidal fields would test whether the current limits remain unchanged.

Load-bearing premise

The results apply only when the magnetic field inside the star is purely poloidal.

What would settle it

A side-by-side calculation of the mass quadrupole moment from both methods at a polar field of 10^15 G that shows close agreement, combined with clear disagreement at 5 times 10^16 G, would confirm the stated ranges of validity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.19761 by Daw Guttmann, Debarati Chatterjee, J\'er\^ome Novak, Martin Jakob Steil, Micaela Oertel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

(1) Background: for the study of highly magnetized neutron stars observed as magnetars, and to quantify the effect of this intense magnetic field onto the star's structure and shape which can be particularly relevant for the study of emission of continuous gravitational waves, both numerical and perturbative approaches have been developed. (2) Methods: we compare these two approaches in General Relativity with the limitation to the case where the magnetic field has a purely poloidal structure. The perturbative one (Konno-99) assumes that the deformation induced by the magnetic field is small and that this field arises only from dipole currents. The full numerical one is based on the library LORENE. (3) Results: we have used both approaches to compute the magnetic field distribution and the deformation of the star, varying the value of the magnetic field at the pole, the compactness of the star and its equation of state. (4) Conclusions: whereas the perturbative approach breaks down for very high polar magnetic field values (typically above a few times $10^{16}$ G), it gives very good results for observed values, even in magnetars. On the contrary, the numerical code exhibits resolution problems for relatively low magnetic field values (typically $10^{10}$ G), which translates into imprecise computation of the star's deformation and mass quadrupole moment.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. This paper compares a perturbative approach (Konno et al. 1999) assuming small deformations from dipole currents and a fully numerical method based on the LORENE library for neutron stars with purely poloidal magnetic fields in general relativity. By systematically varying the polar magnetic field strength, stellar compactness, and equation of state, it concludes that the perturbative method remains accurate for observed magnetar fields but breaks down above a few times 10^16 G, while the numerical code shows resolution problems below ~10^10 G that impair deformation and quadrupole moment calculations.

Significance. If the validity ranges hold under the stated assumptions, the work is significant for providing practical guidance on selecting modeling approaches for highly magnetized neutron stars, particularly in contexts like continuous gravitational wave emission studies. The head-to-head comparison and exploration across compactness and EOS values represent a useful contribution to the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods: The restriction to purely poloidal magnetic fields is stated explicitly, yet the Conclusions apply the reported thresholds and the statement of 'very good results... even in magnetars' without discussing or bounding the impact of possible toroidal components, which would alter current distributions, deformations, and quadrupole moments. This assumption is load-bearing for the central applicability claims.
  2. [Results] Results: The identification of specific breakdown thresholds (perturbative above a few times 10^16 G; numerical below 10^10 G) is presented without error bars, convergence tests, or tabulated data for the magnetic field distributions, deformations, and quadrupole moments across the parameter variations. This weakens the precision of the quantitative claims.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and Conclusions: The phrases 'very good results' and 'imprecise computation' would benefit from explicit quantitative metrics or tolerance criteria used to define them.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment in detail below and outline the revisions we will make to improve the clarity and precision of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The restriction to purely poloidal magnetic fields is stated explicitly, yet the Conclusions apply the reported thresholds and the statement of 'very good results... even in magnetars' without discussing or bounding the impact of possible toroidal components, which would alter current distributions, deformations, and quadrupole moments. This assumption is load-bearing for the central applicability claims.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. Our comparison is intentionally limited to purely poloidal magnetic fields because the perturbative method of Konno et al. (1999) is derived under the assumption of dipole currents producing poloidal fields, and the LORENE implementation we use is configured for the same. The conclusions regarding the validity for observed magnetar fields are therefore within this framework. However, to address the concern, we will add a paragraph in the Conclusions section explicitly noting that the reported thresholds apply specifically to purely poloidal configurations. We will also mention that the inclusion of toroidal components, which are expected in realistic models, could modify the deformation and quadrupole moment, and that extending the comparison to mixed fields is a natural direction for future work. This will better bound the applicability of our claims. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The identification of specific breakdown thresholds (perturbative above a few times 10^16 G; numerical below 10^10 G) is presented without error bars, convergence tests, or tabulated data for the magnetic field distributions, deformations, and quadrupole moments across the parameter variations. This weakens the precision of the quantitative claims.

    Authors: We agree that providing more quantitative support for the thresholds would strengthen the manuscript. In the revised version, we will include additional figures or a table presenting the relative differences between the two methods as a function of magnetic field strength, along with results from convergence tests for the LORENE code at various resolutions. Where feasible, we will report estimated uncertainties in the computed deformations and quadrupole moments. The thresholds were identified based on where the discrepancies exceed a certain percentage (e.g., 10%), but we will make this criterion explicit and provide the underlying data points for key cases across different compactnesses and equations of state. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: independent methods compared directly

full rationale

The paper performs a direct numerical comparison between the established perturbative formalism of Konno et al. (1999) and the independent LORENE library under a shared poloidal-field restriction. No parameters are fitted to subsets of the output data and then re-labeled as predictions; the reported breakdown thresholds (above a few times 10^16 G for perturbation, below 10^10 G for numerics) emerge from explicit computation of field distributions, deformations, and quadrupole moments rather than from any self-definitional loop or self-citation chain. Both methods are treated as external inputs whose results are cross-checked, satisfying the criterion of self-containment against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Paper rests on standard general-relativity assumptions for neutron-star structure plus the explicit restriction to purely poloidal fields; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption General relativity governs the spacetime and hydrostatic equilibrium of the neutron star.
    Invoked for both perturbative and numerical calculations throughout the comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper The magnetic field is purely poloidal.
    Explicitly stated as a limitation of the study in the methods description.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5824 in / 1344 out tokens · 40753 ms · 2026-05-20T04:17:17.331024+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

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · 22 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Deformation of relativistic magnetized stars

    K. Konno, T. Obata, and Y. Kojima, Astron. Astrophys.352, 211 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9910038 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  2. [2]

    LORENE: Spectral methods differential equations solver,

    E. Gourgoulhon, P . Grandcl ´ement, J.-A. Marck, J. Novak, and K. Taniguchi, “LORENE: Spectral methods differential equations solver,” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.018 (2016), ascl:1608.018. 24

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Equations of state for supernovae and compact stars

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl ¨ahn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015007 (2017), arXiv:1610.03361 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    S. A. Olausen and V . M. Kaspi, Astrophys. J. Suppl.212, 6 (2014), arXiv:1309.4167 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Rea and D

    N. Rea and D. De Grandis, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 3, Vol. 3 (2026) pp. 205– 222, arXiv:2503.04442 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    The illusion of neutron star magnetic field estimates

    J. P ´etri, Month. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485, 4573 (2019), arXiv:1903.01528 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    A. I. Ibrahim, C. B. Markwardt, J. H. Swank, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, V . Kaspi, P . M. Woods, S. Safi-Harb, S. Balman, W. C. Parke, and et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.609, L21 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0310665 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    Bonazzola and E

    S. Bonazzola and E. Gourgoulhon, Astron. Astrophys.312, 675 (1996), arXiv:astro- ph/9602107 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 1996

  9. [9]

    A. G. Abac, R. Abbott, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, S. Adhicary, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V . K. Adkins, D. Agarwal, and et al., Astrophys. J.983, 99 (2025), arXiv:2501.01495 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, A. G. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, A. Adam, C. Adamcewicz, S. Adhicary, and et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2603.25938 (2026), arXiv:2603.25938 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, A. G. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, A. Adam, C. Adamcewicz, S. Adhicary, and et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2603.14168 (2026), arXiv:2603.14168 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, A. G. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adamcewicz, S. Adhicary, D. Adhikari, and et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2507.12282 (2025), arXiv:2507.12282 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Dall’Osso, B

    S. Dall’Osso, B. Giacomazzo, R. Perna, and L. Stella, Astrophys. J.798, 25 (2014)

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    Margalit and B

    B. Margalit and B. D. Metzger, Astrophys. J. Lett.880, L15 (2019)

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Mastrano, A

    A. Mastrano, A. Melatos, A. Reisenegger, and T. Akg ¨un, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.417, 2288–2299 (2011)

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    Mastrano, A

    A. Mastrano, A. G. Suvorov, and A. Melatos, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.447, 3475–3485 (2015)

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    M. Das, A. Sedrakian, and B. Mukhopadhyay, Phys. Rev. D113, 043004 (2026), 25 arXiv:2508.18363 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Pagliaro, M

    G. Pagliaro, M. A. Papa, J. Ming, and M. Muratore, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.540, 1006 (2025), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/540/1/1006/63140705/staf774.pdf

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Deformations of Accreting Neutron Star Crusts and Gravitational Wave Emission

    G. Ushomirsky, C. Cutler, and L. Bildsten, Month. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.319, 902 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0001136 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  20. [20]

    C. J. Horowitz and K. Kadau, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 191102 (2009), arXiv:0904.1986 [astro- ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  21. [21]

    J. A. Morales and C. J. Horowitz, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517, 5610 (2022), arXiv:2209.03222 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Gittins and N

    F. Gittins and N. Andersson, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.507, 116 (2021), arXiv:2105.06493 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Adhikari, M

    P . Adhikari, M. Ammon, S. S. Avancini, A. Ayala, A. Bandyopadhyay, D. Blaschke, F. L. Braghin, P . Buividovich, R. P . Cardoso, C. Cartwright, and et al., Prog. Part. Nuc. Phys.146, 104199 (2026), arXiv:2412.18632 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    ROTATING NEUTRON STAR MODELS WITH MAGNETIC FIELD

    M. Bocquet, S. Bonazzola, E. Gourgoulhon, and J. Novak, Astron. Astrophys.301, 757 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9503044 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  25. [25]

    C. Y. Cardall, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, Astrophys. J.554, 322 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0011148

    work page arXiv 2001

  26. [26]

    Relativistic stars with purely toroidal magnetic fields

    K. Kiuchi and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D78, 044045 (2008), arXiv:0802.2983 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  27. [27]

    Structure and deformations of strongly magnetized neutron stars with twisted torus configurations

    R. Ciolfi, V . Ferrari, and L. Gualtieri, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.406, 2540 (2010), arXiv:1003.2148 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  28. [28]

    Twisted-torus configurations with large toroidal magnetic fields in relativistic stars

    R. Ciolfi and L. Rezzolla, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.435, L43 (2013), arXiv:1306.2803 [astro- ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

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

    work page 1967

  30. [30]

    J. B. Hartle and K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J.153, 807 (1968)

    work page 1968

  31. [31]

    Lindblom, Astrophys

    L. Lindblom, Astrophys. J.398, 569 (1992)

    work page 1992

  32. [32]

    Bonazzola, E

    S. Bonazzola, E. Gourgoulhon, M. Salgado, and J. A. Marck, Astron. Astrophys.278, 421 (1993)

    work page 1993

  33. [33]

    Relativistic models of magnetars: structure and deformations

    A. Colaiuda, V . Ferrari, L. Gualtieri, and J. A. Pons, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.385, 2080 (2008), arXiv:0712.2162 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2080

  34. [34]

    Grad-Shafranov equation in noncircular stationary axisymmetric spacetimes

    K. Ioka and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D67, 124026 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0302106 [gr-qc]. 26

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  35. [35]

    Relativistic stars with poloidal and toroidal magnetic fields and meridional flow

    K. Ioka and M. Sasaki, Astrophys. J.600, 296 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0305352 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  36. [36]

    Chandrasekhar and J

    S. Chandrasekhar and J. C. Miller, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.167, 63 (1974)

    work page 1974

  37. [37]

    Novak and E

    J. Novak and E. Marcq, Class. Quantum Grav.20, 3051 (2003)

    work page 2003

  38. [38]

    Revising the multipole moments of numerical spacetimes, and its consequences

    G. Pappas and T. A. Apostolatos, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 231104 (2012), arXiv:1201.6067 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  39. [39]

    J. L. Friedman and N. Stergioulas, Rotating Relativistic Stars (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    R. Prix, J. Novak, and G. L. Comer, Phys. Rev. D71, 1 (2005)

    work page 2005

  41. [41]

    Gourgoulhon, Lecture Notes in Physics, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol

    E. Gourgoulhon, Lecture Notes in Physics, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 846 (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2012)

    work page 2012

  42. [42]

    Grandcl ´ement and J

    P . Grandcl ´ement and J. Novak, Living Rev. Relativity12, 1 (2009), http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2009-1

    work page 2009

  43. [43]

    Grandcl´ement, S

    P . Grandcl´ement, S. Bonazzola, E. Gourgoulhon, and J.-A. Marck, J. Comput. Phys.170, 231 (2001)

    work page 2001

  44. [44]

    Gourgoulhon and S

    E. Gourgoulhon and S. Bonazzola, Class. Quantum Grav.11, 443 (1994)

    work page 1994

  45. [45]

    Bonazzola and E

    S. Bonazzola and E. Gourgoulhon, Class. Quantum Grav.11, 1775 (1994)

    work page 1994

  46. [46]

    P . J. Davis, H. Dinh Thi, A. F. Fantina, F. Gulminelli, M. Oertel, and L. Suleiman, Eur. Phys. J. A61, 120 (2025), arXiv:2506.08658 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Equation of state and thickness of the inner crust of neutron stars

    F. Grill, H. Pais, C. Provid ˆencia, I. Vida˜na, and S. S. Avancini, Phys. Rev. C90, 045803 (2014), arXiv:1404.2753 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  48. [48]

    K. Otto, M. Oertel, and B.-J. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D101, 103021 (2020), arXiv:1910.11929 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    K. Otto, M. Oertel, and B.-J. Schaefer, Eur. Phys. J. ST229, 3629 (2020), arXiv:2007.07394 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Hyperons in neutron star matter within relativistic mean-field models

    M. Oertel, C. Provid ˆencia, F. Gulminelli, and A. R. Raduta, J. Phys. G42, 075202 (2015), arXiv:1412.4545 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  51. [51]

    Composition and thermodynamics of nuclear matter with light clusters

    S. Typel, G. Ropke, T. Klahn, D. Blaschke, and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C81, 015803 (2010), arXiv:0908.2344 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  52. [52]

    The equation of state for nucleon matter and neutron star structure

    A. Akmal, V . R. Pandharipande, and D. G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C58, 1804 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9804027

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  53. [53]

    P . J. Davis, H. Dinh Thi, A. F. Fantina, F. Gulminelli, M. Oertel, and L. Suleiman, Astron. Astrophys.687, A44 (2024), arXiv:2406.14906 [astro-ph.HE]. 27

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Typel, M

    S. Typel, M. Oertel, and T. Kl ¨ahn, Phys. Part. Nuc.46, 633 (2015)

    work page 2015

  55. [55]

    Typel, M

    S. Typel, M. Oertel, T. Kl¨ahn, D. Chatterjee, V . Dexheimer, C. Ishizuka, M. Mancini, J. Novak, H. Pais, and et al., Eur. Phys. J. A58, 221 (2022), arXiv:2203.03209 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Ddfgos(apr) cold neutron star eos,

    P . Davis et al., “Ddfgos(apr) cold neutron star eos,” (2025),https://compose.obspm.fr/ eos/327[Accessed: 2026-08-04]

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    Gppva(dd2) cold neutron star eos,

    H. Pais et al., “Gppva(dd2) cold neutron star eos,” (2023),https://compose.obspm.fr/eos/ 217, [Accessed: 2026-08-04]

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    Oos(dd2-frg) cold neutron star eos,

    K. Otto et al., “Oos(dd2-frg) cold neutron star eos,” (2021),https://compose.obspm.fr/ eos/197, [Accessed: 2026-08-04]

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    Opgr(gm1y5) cold neutron star eos,

    M. Oertel et al., “Opgr(gm1y5) cold neutron star eos,” (2015),https://compose.obspm.fr/ eos/65, [Accessed: 2026-08-04]

    work page 2015

  60. [60]

    Das and B

    M. Das and B. Mukhopadhyay, Astrophys. J.955, 19 (2023)

    work page 2023

  61. [61]

    A. G. Pili, N. Bucciantini, and L. Del Zanna, Month. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.439, 3541 (2014), arXiv:1401.4308 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  62. [62]

    Ury ¯u, S

    K. Ury ¯u, S. Yoshida, E. Gourgoulhon, C. Markakis, K. Fujisawa, A. Tsokaros, K. Taniguchi, and Y. Eriguchi, Phys. Rev. D100, 123019 (2019), arXiv:1906.10393 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    Consistent neutron star models with magnetic field dependent equations of state

    D. Chatterjee, T. Elghozi, J. Novak, and M. Oertel, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.447, 3785 (2015), arXiv:1410.6332 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  64. [64]

    A. M. Raghoonundun, Exact Solutions for Compact Objects in General Relativity, Ph.D. thesis, University of Calgary (Canada) (2016), arXiv:arXiv:1604.08930 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  65. [65]

    Revisiting Hartle's model using perturbed matching theory to second order: amending the change in mass

    B. Reina and R. Vera, Class. Quantum Grav.32, 155008 (2015), arXiv:1412.7083 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  66. [66]

    Rezzolla and B

    L. Rezzolla and B. J. Ahmedov, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.352, 1161 (2004). 28

    work page 2004