Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Insights Into Neutron Stars From Gravitational Redshifts and Universal Relations

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives universal relations linking neutron-star gravitational redshift to moment of inertia, quadrupole moment, spin, tidal deformability, and average sound speed, and uses three measured redshifts to estimate these properties.

desk verdict New Z_g-based universal relations for I, Q, spin, and sound speed, but the static-redshift proxy for rotating models undercuts the headline reliability claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04943 v2 pith:YXKFPBFO submitted 2025-02-07 astro-ph.HE

Sagnik Chatterjee , Kamal Krishna Nath This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstarsgravitationalredshiftuniversalrelationsequationofstatemomentinertiatidaldeformabilityquadrupolespeedsound
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 proposes that a neutron star's gravitational redshift can act as a master observable for estimating properties that are otherwise hard to measure: moment of inertia, quadrupole moment, spin parameter, dimensionless tidal deformability, and average squared sound speed. It builds an agnostic family of equations of state, computes these quantities for rotating 480 Hz stellar models, and fits universal relations between each quantity and the static redshift $Z_g$. Applying those fits to the measured redshifts of three isolated neutron stars yields theoretical estimates; for the best-measured source, RX J0720.4-3125, the tidal-deformability estimate matches an independent Bayesian analysis, which the authors read as evidence that low-uncertainty redshift measurements can substitute for statistical inference. The paper also reports that tidal deformability and average sound speed breach the 10% universality tolerance relative to $Z_g$, and that the maximum redshift allowed by current astrophysical constraints is about 0.763.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the static gravitational redshift $Z_g = 1/\sqrt{1-2GM/(Rc^2)}-1$, promoted from a single observable to the independent variable of a family of fitted universal relations. For each target quantity $y$ among $\bar I$, $\bar Q$, $M\bar f/\chi$, and $\langle c_s^2\rangle$, the fit takes the form $\log_{10} y = \sum_{i=0}^4 a_i (\log_{10} Z_g)^i$, while the dimensionless tidal deformability $\bar\lambda$ requires an augmented fit with linear and exponential terms. The relations are built from stars generated by a speed-of-sound-parameterized ensemble of equations of state, using the 10% scatter associated with the conventional I-love-Q relations (the near-universal linkage among moment of inertia, tidal deformability, and quadrupole moment) as the threshold for universality.

What would settle it

Recompute the five fits with the rotating star's polar redshift in place of the static redshift; if the scatter for $\bar I$, $\bar Q$, or $M\bar f/\chi$ then exceeds the 10% tolerance, the quasi-universality claim is falsified. Observationally, a single neutron star with both a measured redshift and an independently timed moment of inertia would test the redshift-inertia relation directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors take the gravitational redshift of a neutron star, $Z_g = 1/\sqrt{1-2GM/(Rc^2)}-1$, to be a compact observable that correlates nearly universally with stars' moment of inertia, quadrupole moment, and spin-parameter combination $M\bar f/\chi$ across a broad agnostic family of equations of state satisfying current astrophysical constraints. Fits of $\log_{10} y$ against $\log_{10} Z_g$ keep most of the equation-of-state scatter within a 10% tolerance for these three quantities. The dimensionless tidal deformability $\bar\lambda$ and the average squared sound speed $\langle c_s^2\rangle$ do not stay within that tolerance, so the paper reports a violation of universality for those two. Applying the fitted relations to the measured redshifts of RBS 1223, RX J0720.4-3125, and RX J1856.5-3754 yields estimates of $\bar I$, $\bar Q$, $M\bar f/\chi$, $\bar\lambda$, and $\langle c_s^2\rangle$; for the best-measured source the tidal-deformability estimate agrees with an independent Bayesian analysis. Finally, mapping mass to redshift shows that stars consistent with current constraints reach at most $Z_g \simeq 0.763$.

Load-bearing premise

The estimation scheme relies on treating the static redshift of a non-rotating star with the same central density as a stand-in for the redshift of the real rotating star, although the two can differ by up to about 20%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measured redshift alone, without a simultaneous radius or mass determination, can produce estimates of moment of inertia, quadrupole moment, and the rotational parameter for a star spinning near 480 Hz.
  • For the most precise current redshift measurements, these estimates can serve as a cross-check on, or replacement for, full Bayesian parameter-estimation analyses.
  • The maximum-redshift bound $Z_g \lesssim 0.763$ tightens the earlier theoretical ceiling of 2 and gives a concrete prediction for future redshift surveys.
  • Because $\bar\lambda$ and $\langle c_s^2\rangle$ violate the 10% universality tolerance, redshift-based estimates of those two quantities should be quoted with wider error bars.
  • Universality with $Z_g$ for $\bar I$ and $\bar Q$ does not automatically extend to $\bar\lambda$, so the transitivity familiar from I-love-Q relations fails when the shared variable is gravitational redshift.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If future redshift measurements become precise enough, the same fitting functions could be inverted to rank candidate equations of state: an observed redshift plus one independent parameter would place the star on the relation, and disagreement beyond the scatter would disfavor the equation-of-state family used.
  • The fits are anchored at a single spin frequency, so applying them to stars with very different rotation rates, or to polar rather than static redshifts, will require a spin-dependent correction; the appendix's 20% difference bound suggests the qualitative relations survive but the fitted coefficients shift.
  • The reported violation for $\bar\lambda$ is a prediction that can be tested with independent microscopic equations of state; if those reproduce the same breakdown of transitivity, the effect is a generic property of $Z_g$ as a universal variable.
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 constructs an agnostic ensemble of neutron-star equations of state using a sound-speed parametrization matched to chiral EFT and pQCD inputs, imposes the 2 M_sun maximum-mass constraint and the GW170817 tidal-deformability constraint, and computes neutron-star properties with the RNS code at 480 Hz. It proposes universal relations between the gravitational redshift Z_g and the dimensionless moment of inertia, quadrupole moment, the combination M*fbar/chi, the average sound speed, and the dimensionless tidal deformability. The relations are then used to translate the observed redshifts of RBS 1223, RX J0720.4-3125, and RX J1856.5-3754 into estimates of these hidden properties, with a comparison against the Bayesian estimates of Luo et al. The paper also reports a maximum gravitational redshift of about 0.763 for the constrained EoS ensemble and claims that the new relations can serve as an alternative to statistical analysis for low-uncertainty observations.

Significance. If the proposed relations hold and the redshift-to-property mapping is reliable, the paper would provide a simple, observationally driven route to moment of inertia, quadrupole moment, spin parameter, and tidal deformability estimates from isolated neutron-star redshift measurements. The use of a large agnostic EoS ensemble with standard astrophysical constraints is a strength, as is the explicit comparison with an independent Bayesian analysis for RX J0720.4-3125, where the agreement is notable. The maximum-redshift bound is also a useful consistency check. However, the central quantitative claims currently rest on a static-redshift proxy for rotating stars that the authors themselves show can differ by up to 20%, and the fit uncertainties and error propagation are not reported, so the reliability claim in the abstract is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 and Appendix A] The universal relations mix a static redshift with rotating-star properties. Section 3 states that Z_g is computed for a non-rotating star with the same central density, while the response variables in Eqs. (7)-(8) and Table 1 are computed with RNS at 480 Hz. Appendix A shows that the fractional difference between the polar redshift of the rotating star and the static redshift can reach 20% and exceeds 10% for many EoSs. The most precise observation, RX J0720.4-3125, has an uncertainty of about 3%, so a 10-20% systematic shift in the abscissa of every fitted relation can dominate the error budget of the inferred parameters. The appendix only plots the difference and asserts that the qualitative analysis will remain the same without recomputing the fits. Until the relations are re-fitted with a consistently defined rotating-star redshift, or are shown to be insensitive to this choice, the headline claim that the predictions are highly reliable is unsupported.
  2. [Section 3, Eqs. (7)-(8) and Table 1] The fit coefficients are listed without uncertainties, and no scatter measure (such as the rms fractional deviation, maximum deviation, or R^2) is given for any of the five relations. The paper's universality and violation conclusions are based on a 10% tolerance line in the deviation plots, but without a quantitative measure of the scatter it is not possible to assess whether, for example, the claimed violation for lambda_bar and <c_s^2> is statistically significant or merely reflects a few outlier EoSs. Reporting coefficient errors and the residual scatter for each relation is necessary to support the claims of quasi-universality and violation.
  3. [Section 3, fractional error definition] The definition of the fractional percentage error is internally inconsistent. The text says |Delta| = |V_y - V_fit|/V_fit, where V_y is the value from the theoretical NS models and V_fit is 'the value of the corresponding fitting function log_10 y'. If V_fit is literally log_10 y, then the numerator and denominator have different units and the fractional error is not defined. If the intended quantity is the relative error in y, then V_fit should be 10^(log_10 y) and the text should say so. This matters because the 10% tolerance claims in Figs. 2-6 directly use this quantity.
  4. [Table 2 and Section 3] The theoretical estimates in Table 2 propagate only the observational redshift uncertainty through the fitted polynomials; they do not include the intrinsic scatter of the universal relations or the uncertainties of the fit coefficients. For RX J1856.5-3754 the upper uncertainty on lambda_bar is +12194, which is far larger than the central value, and no explanation is given for this asymmetry or for the method used to compute the asymmetric errors. Without a systematic error budget that includes the UR scatter, the comparison with the Bayesian estimates in Table 3 and the statement that the estimates are reliable for low-uncertainty observations are not quantitatively supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] The claim that the maximum gravitational redshift 'does not exceed 0.763' is stated as a general result, but it is derived from a specific EoS ensemble and a set of astrophysical constraints; the wording should be softened to indicate that this is an upper limit within the ensemble considered.
  2. [Eq. (5)] The chirp mass is denoted with M, which conflicts with the stellar mass M used in Eq. (1) and elsewhere; using M_c for the chirp mass would avoid confusion.
  3. [Figure captions and labels] In Fig. 5 the caption contains 'the the red horizontal line', and the lower panels of Figs. 2-6 do not label the y-axis quantity (presumably the percentage fractional error). Please clarify the axes and fix the typo.
  4. [Section 3] The notation M * fbar / chi is not explicitly defined as a dimensionless combination. Since the fit is performed on log_10 of this quantity, a short explanation of the dimensions (or a proof that it is dimensionless in geometrized units) would help the reader.
  5. [Section 2.1] The text contains a typo: 'chrip mass' should be 'chirp mass'. There are also minor inconsistencies such as 'parametrisation' vs 'parametrization' and 'Tolman-Oppenheimer-V olkoff' with a stray space.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the estimation loop uses external observed redshifts, with only minor self-citation and a definitional redundancy as caveats.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Universal relations are calibrated on an agnostic EoS ensemble built from BPS, monotropes, and sound-speed parameterization with astrophysical cuts, and the response quantities (I, Q, lambda, chi, and <c_s^2>) are computed with RNS. The abscissa is Zg computed from static TOV solutions at the same central density, and the observed redshifts of RBS 1223, RX J0720.4-3125, and RX J1856.5-3754 enter only at the evaluation step, so the theoretical estimates are not fitted to the quantities they predict. One internal redundancy: from the paper's definitions I = J/Omega, chi = J/M^2, and f = Omega/(2 pi), it follows that M*f/chi = M^3/(2 pi I) = 1/(2 pi Ibar), so the claimed M*f/chi universal relation is a rescaling of the Ibar-Zg relation rather than an independent channel; this does not make the redshift-based estimates circular, but the separate presentation in Table 1 and Table 2 is a definitional redundancy. The 10% tolerance limit is justified by a self-citation to the authors' prior I-love-Q analysis [12], but it is a conventional threshold and is not load-bearing for the fitted estimates. The principal weakness is a correctness issue, not circularity: Section 3 states that 'Zg is computed for a non-rotating star but with the same central density' while the fitted quantities are for 480-Hz rotators, and Appendix A admits up to 20% polar/static redshift differences yet asserts without recomputation that the qualitative analysis will remain the same. That systematic mismatch could shift the fitted relations, but it is a modelling-consistency concern, not a reduction of the outputs to the inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the speed-of-sound parametrized EoS ensemble, the choice of 480 Hz rotation, and the static-redshift proxy; these are modeling choices rather than derived results.

free parameters (4)
  • Universal relation fit coefficients a_i (for Qbar, Ibar, M*fbar/chi, <c_s^2>) = Table 1
    Fitted to the EoS ensemble; these coefficients define the claimed universal relations.
  • Universal relation fit coefficients l_i (for lambdabar) = l0=97.33032, l1=241.45649, l2=209.56402, l3=89.10265, l4=15.47452, l5=-167.10804, l6=26.2434
    Fitted to the EoS ensemble; extra exponential and linear terms are added to reduce scatter.
  • Rotation frequency for RNS computations = 480 Hz
    Chosen for all UR fits; the paper does not show the dependence of the relations on spin frequency beyond the redshift comparison in Appendix A.
  • Number of segments N in sound-speed parametrization = N in {3,4,5,7}
    Discretization choice for the speed-of-sound interpolation; affects the EoS ensemble.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations correctly describe static neutron star structure.
    Used to compute mass-radius relations for each EoS (Sec 2.1).
  • standard math The RNS code correctly solves for rotating neutron star properties.
    Used to compute I, Q, lambdabar, and spin parameters (Sec 3).
  • domain assumption The speed-of-sound parametrization produces a representative ensemble of physical EoSs.
    The agnostic EoS construction (Sec 2.1) relies on this to span plausible EoS space.
  • domain assumption The imposed astrophysical constraints (M_max >= 2 M_sun, GW170817 tidal deformability) select realistic EoSs.
    Used to filter the EoS family (Sec 2.1).
  • domain assumption The static redshift for a star with the same central density is a valid proxy for the rotating star's redshift.
    Used to define Z_g in the URs (Sec 3); approximate check in Appendix A shows up to 20% difference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Insights Into Neutron Stars From Gravitational Redshifts and Universal Relations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YXKFPBFO

@misc{pith2026250204943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Insights Into Neutron Stars From Gravitational Redshifts and Universal Relations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YXKFPBFO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04943}
}
abstract

The universal relations in neutron stars form an essential entity to understand their properties. The moment of inertia, dimensionless tidal deformability, mass quadrupole moment, and oscillation modes are some of the properties that have been studied previously in the context of universal relations. All of these quantities are measurable; thus, analyzing them is of utmost importance. In this article we provide new universal relations in the context of a neutron star's gravitational redshift. Using the redshift measurements of RBS 1223, RX J0720.4-3125, and RX J1856.5-3754, we provide theoretical estimates of moment of inertia, dimensionless tidal deformability, mass quadrupole moment, the mass of the star times the ratio of angular frequency over the spin angular moment, and the average of the speed of sound squared. In the case of the redshift measurement of RX J0720.4-3125, we found that the theoretical estimate using universal relations aligns closely with the Bayesian estimate. Our findings indicate that such theoretical predictions are highly reliable for observations with low uncertainty and can be used as an alternative for statistical analysis. Additionally, we report a violation of the universality of the dimensionless tidal deformability and average of the speed of sound squared with respect to the gravitational redshift. Our calculations further indicate that, under current astrophysical constraints, the maximum gravitational redshift attainable by neutron stars does not exceed $0.763$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Patra, S.Md.A

    N.K. Patra, S.Md.A. Imam, B.K. Agrawal, A. Mukher- jee, T. Malik, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043024 (2022). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043024

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.043024 2022

  2. [2]

    D.G. Roy, A. Venneti, T. Malik, S. Bhattacharya, S. Banik, Phys. Lett. B 859, 139128 (2024). doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139128

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Beznogov, A.R

    M.V . Beznogov, A.R. Raduta, Phys. Rev. C110, 035805 (2024). doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110.035805

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.110.035805 2024

  4. [4]

    Traversi, P

    S. Traversi, P. Char, G. Pagliara, Astrophys. J. 897, 165 (2020). doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab99c1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab99c1 2020

  5. [5]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103009

    Tewari S., Chatterjee S., Kumar D., Mallick R., 2025, PhRvD, 111, 103009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.103009 2025

  6. [6]

    Chatterjee, H

    S. Chatterjee, H. Sudhakaran, R. Mallick, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1291 (2024). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024- 13668-8

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024- 2024

  7. [7]

    Brandes, C

    L. Brandes, C. Modi, A. Ghosh, D. Farrell, L. Lind- blom, L. Heinrich, A.W. Steiner, F. Weber, D. White- son, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09, 009 (2024). doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/009

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/009 2024

  8. [8]

    Carvalho, M

    V . Carvalho, M. Ferreira, T. Malik, C. Providên- cia, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043031 (2023). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043031

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.043031 2023

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Ventagli, I.D

    G. Ventagli, I.D. Saltas, [arXiv:2405.17908 [astro- ph.HE]] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Konstantinou, S.M

    A. Konstantinou, S.M. Morsink, Astrophys. J. 934, 139 (2022). doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7b86

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Annala, C

    E. Annala, C. Ecker, C. Hoyos, N. Jokela, D.R. Fer- nández, A. Vuorinen, J. High Energy Phys. 2018, 078 (2018). doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2018)078

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    K.K. Nath, R. Mallick, S. Chatterjee, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 524, 1438 (2023). doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1967

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Laskos-Patkos, P.S

    P. Laskos-Patkos, P.S. Koliogiannis, A. Kanakis- Pegios, C.C. Moustakidis, Universe 8, 395 (2022). doi:10.3390/universe8080395

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Lattimer, M

    J.M. Lattimer, M. Prakash, Science 304, 536 (2004). doi:10.1126/science.1090720

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    Tolos, M

    L. Tolos, M. Centelles, A. Ramos, Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust. 34, e065 (2017). doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.60

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Oertel, C

    M. Oertel, C. Providência, F. Gulminelli, A.R. Raduta, J. Phys. G 42, 075202 (2015). doi:10.1088/0954- 3899/42/7/075202

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    Weber, J

    F. Weber, J. Phys. G 25, R195 (1999). doi:10.1088/0954-3899/25/9/201

    1999 doi

  10. [18]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. N"attil"a, A. Vuori- nen, Nat. Phys. 16, 907 (2020). doi:10.1038/s41567- 020-0914-9

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Mishra, Eur

    H. Mishra, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 231, 103 (2022). doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-022-00439-3

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    M.S. Ali, D. Biswas, A. Jaiswal, H. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114017 (2024). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.114017

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Most, L.R

    E.R. Most, L.R. Weih, L. Rezzolla, J. Schaffner- Bielich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 261103 (2018). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.261103

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Greif, G

    S.K. Greif, G. Raaijmakers, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, A.L. Watts, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 485, 5363 (2019). doi:10.1093/mnras/stz654

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Lindblom, N.M

    L. Lindblom, N.M. Indik, Phys. Rev. D 89, 064003 (2014). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.064003

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    K. Yagi, N. Yunes, Phys. Rep. 681, 1 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.03.002

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    Gonzalez-Romero, J.L

    L.M. Gonzalez-Romero, J.L. Blazquez-Salcedo, F. Navarro-Lerida, in The F ourteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting , ed. by M. Bianchi et al. (World Scientific, Singapore, 2017), p. 1629. doi:10.1142/9789813226609_0159

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Lenka, P

    S.S. Lenka, P. Char, S. Banik, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26, 1750127 (2017). doi:10.1142/S0218271817501279

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    Kumar, M.K

    A. Kumar, M.K. Ghosh, P. Thakur, V .B. Thapa, K.K. Nath, M. Sinha, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 692 (2024). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13066-0

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Staykov, D.D

    K.V . Staykov, D.D. Doneva, S.S. Yazad- jiev, Phys. Rev. D 93, 084010 (2016). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084010

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    C. Breu, L. Rezzolla, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 459, 646 (2016). doi:10.1093/mnras/stw575

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    K. Yagi, N. Yunes, Science 341, 365 (2013). doi:10.1126/science.1236462

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Thakur, S

    P. Thakur, S. Chatterjee, K.K. Nath, R. Mallick, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103045 (2024). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103045

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    A. Guha, D. Sen, C.H. Hyun, arXiv:2412.18569 [hep- ph] (2024). [https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.18569]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Ghosh, [arXiv:2412.20815 [gr-qc]] (2024)

    S. Ghosh, [arXiv:2412.20815 [gr-qc]] (2024)

    2024

  26. [35]

    Hambaryan, R

    V . Hambaryan, R. Neuhäuser, V . Suleimanov, K. Werner, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 496(1), 012015 (2014). doi:10.1088/1742-6596/496/1/012015

    2014 doi

  27. [36]

    Hambaryan et al., A&A 601, A108 (2017)

    V . Hambaryan et al., A&A 601, A108 (2017). doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630368

    2017 doi

  28. [37]

    Buchdahl, Phys

    H.A. Buchdahl, Phys. Rev. 116(4), 1027 (1959). doi:10.1103/PhysRev.116.1027

    1959 doi

  29. [38]

    Bondi, Proc

    H. Bondi, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 282(1390), 303 (1964). doi:10.1098/rspa.1964.0234 8

    1964

  30. [39]

    Hartle, Phys

    J.B. Hartle, Phys. Rep. 46(6), 201 (1978). doi:10.1016/0370-1573(78)90140-0

    1978 doi

  31. [40]

    Lindblom, Astrophys

    L. Lindblom, Astrophys. J. 278, 364 (1984). doi:10.1086/161800

    1984 doi

  32. [41]

    Tang, J.-L

    S.-P. Tang, J.-L. Jiang, W.-H. Gao, Y .-Z. Fan, D.-M. Wei, Astrophys. J. 888(1), 45 (2020). doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5959

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    Luo, S.-P

    C.-N. Luo, S.-P. Tang, J.-L. Jiang, W.-H. Gao, D.-M. Wei, Astrophys. J. 930(1), 4 (2022). doi:10.3847/1538- 4357/ac6175

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    S. Yang, D. Wen, J. Wang, J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 105(6), 063023 (2022). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063023

    2022 doi

  35. [44]

    G. Baym, C. Pethick, P. Sutherland, Astrophys. J. 170, 299 (1971). doi:10.1086/151216

    1971 doi

  36. [45]

    Altiparmak, C

    S. Altiparmak, C. Ecker, L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett. 939, L34 (2022). doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b2a

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

    Hebeler, J.M

    K. Hebeler, J.M. Lattimer, C.J. Pethick, A. Schwenk, Astrophys. J. 773, 11 (2013). doi:10.1088/0004- 637X/773/1/11

    2013 doi

  38. [47]

    Ecker, L

    C. Ecker, L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett. 939, L35 (2022). doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8674

    2022 doi

  39. [48]

    Kurkela, P

    A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. D 81, 105021 (2010). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.105021

    2010 doi

  40. [49]

    Oppenheimer, G.M

    J.R. Oppenheimer, G.M. V olkoff, Phys. Rev. 55, 374 (1939). doi:10.1103/PhysRev.55.374

    1939 doi

  41. [50]

    Antoniadis et al., Science 340, 6131 (2013)

    J. Antoniadis et al., Science 340, 6131 (2013). doi:10.1126/science.1233232

    2013 doi

  42. [51]

    Fonseca et al., Astrophys

    E. Fonseca et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, L12 (2021). doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    Cromartie et al

    H.T. Cromartie et al. (NANOGrav Collaboration), Nat. Astron. 4, 72 (2019). doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2

    2019 doi

  44. [53]

    Abbott et al

    B.P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101

    2018 doi

  45. [54]

    Romani, D

    R.W. Romani, D. Kandel, A.V . Filippenko, T.G. Brink, W.K. Zheng, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L17 (2022). doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8007

    2022 doi

  46. [55]

    Miller et al., Astrophys

    M.C. Miller et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L24 (2019). doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5

    2019 doi

  47. [56]

    Papigkiotis, G

    G. Papigkiotis, G. Pappas, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103050 (2023). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103050

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    Saes, R.F.P

    J.A. Saes, R.F.P. Mendes, N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024011 (2024). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.024011

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    Saes, R.F.P

    J.A. Saes, R.F.P. Mendes, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043027 (2022). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043027

    2022 doi

  50. [59]

    Stergioulas, J.L

    N. Stergioulas, J.L. Friedman, Astrophys. J. 444, 306 (1995). doi:10.1086/175605

    1995 doi

  51. [60]

    Nozawa, N

    T. Nozawa, N. Stergioulas, E. Gourgoulhon, Y . Eriguchi, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser. 132, 431 (1998). doi:10.1051/aas:1998304 Fig. 8 The upper panel shows the variation of the polar redshift with the static redshift. The lower panel represents the fractional relative differ...

    1998 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.