Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 98 references

Gravitational waves from r-mode oscillations of stochastically accreting neutron stars

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper predicts that r-modes in slowly rotating, stochastically accreting neutron stars emit gravitational-wave strain of order $10^{-35}$, below current LIGO sensitivity, and shows that the temporal autocorrelation of the signal can…

desk verdict Clean analytic r-mode strain from stochastic accretion; the CFS autocorrelation diagnostic is speculative but the stress-test's distinct-impact objection does not survive the equations. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04968 v1 pith:L2QDHEIL submitted 2025-01-09 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRgr-qc

Wenhao Dong , Andrew Melatos This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRgr-qc
keywords r-modesgravitationalwavesneutronstarsstochasticaccretionChandrasekhar-Friedman-Schutzinstabilitycontinuousasteroseismologydiscs
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 asks what gravitational radiation a neutron star emits when lumps of accreting matter randomly slam into its surface and excite r-modes, the Coriolis-restored oscillations usually discussed as a potential continuous-wave source. Working in a slowly rotating, barotropic, Newtonian stellar model with the Chandrasekhar-Friedman-Schutz instability switched off, it derives an analytic Green's-function formula for the r-mode amplitude and a closed-form root-mean-square strain. The central quantitative result is $h_{\rm rms} \approx 4.61\times 10^{-35}\gamma_v (d/1\,{\rm kpc})^{-1} (R_*/10\,{\rm km})^{2} (\nu_s/10\,{\rm Hz})^{2} (\dot{M}/10^{-8}\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}) (f_{\rm acc}/1\,{\rm kHz})^{-1/2} (|\boldsymbol{v}|/0.4c) (\Delta t_{\rm acc}/1\,{\rm yr})^{1/2}$ times an angular factor, which is comparable to the strain from impact-excited $f$-, $p$-, and $g$-modes and too weak for current LIGO detectors. The paper also argues that the slope and concavity of the strain's temporal autocorrelation function can observationally distinguish whether the CFS instability is off, was on before the observation, or switched on during the observation.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on a Green's-function solution to the forced oscillation problem: each clump is treated as a point-like, top-hat force, and the mode amplitude is $c_\alpha(t) \propto \int d^3x \int dt'\, \boldsymbol{\xi}_\alpha^*\cdot \boldsymbol{F}/N_\alpha$, with the symplectic orthogonality of rotating-star eigenmodes supplying the normalization. The r-mode eigenfunctions are purely axial with $\boldsymbol{\xi}_\alpha \propto r^{|m|}(\hat{\boldsymbol{r}}\times\nabla)Y_{|m|m}$ and corotating frequency $\omega_\alpha = 2m\Omega/[l(l+1)]$. The gravitational radiation is computed from current multipole moments, and stochasticity enters as a Poisson shot-noise process with mean impact rate $f_{\rm acc}$. The same autocorrelation machinery then yields both the rms strain and the proposed diagnostic for the CFS instability, the instability in which gravitational-radiation back-reaction makes the mode grow.

What would settle it

A numerical simulation that replaces the point-like top-hat impact with an extended, time-varying clump profile and measures the excited r-mode energy would directly test equation (52), since the authors argue spatial averaging would reduce the amplitude; alternatively, a continuous-wave search of a known accreting neutron star with integration time at least the damping timescale could measure the autocorrelation slope and curvature and thereby test the CFS-coexistence prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that mechanically excited r-modes are a viable but faint stochastic gravitational-wave source whose amplitude is nearly equation-of-state independent. The instantaneous strain from one clump scales as $(\nu_s/10\,{\rm Hz})^{2}(R_*/10\,{\rm km})^{2}(\dot{M}/10^{-8}\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1})(f_{\rm acc}/1\,{\rm kHz})^{-1}$, and the root-mean-square strain is given by equation (52) with the explicit prefactor $4.61\times 10^{-35}$. Because the mode amplitude scales inversely with spin frequency, the strain grows as $\nu_s^2$ rather than the usual $\nu_s^3$, and the equation of state enters only through the damping timescale $\tau_\alpha$. The paper further derives the amplitude spectral density and shows that although its peaks can nominally exceed LIGO sensitivity for long damping times, detecting them would require an integration time comparable to $\tau_\alpha$, typically much longer than a realistic observation. Finally, it shows that the temporal autocorrelation function's time dependence flips sign and curvature depending on whether and when the CFS instability switches on, offering a test for coexistence of the instability with impact excitation.

Load-bearing premise

The central estimate assumes each accreting clump deposits its momentum at a single surface point, as a top-hat force with identical momentum, duration, and location, arriving in a Poisson process; the authors note that extended radial or angular impact profiles would probably reduce the r-mode amplitude through spatial averaging.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a slow rotator with $\nu_s = 10$ Hz at 1 kpc accreting at $10^{-8}\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$, the predicted rms strain is about $4.6\times10^{-35}$, far below current continuous-wave upper limits near $10^{-25}$.
  • The r-mode strain is comparable to, not far above, the strain from stochastically excited $f$-, $p$-, and $g$-modes, so r-modes do not stand out as a louder channel under this excitation mechanism.
  • Because the strain scales as $\nu_s^2$ and the required integration time grows with the damping time, only fast rotators with long damping times, observed by next-generation detectors, offer a realistic chance of detection.
  • A measurement of the temporal autocorrelation function's slope and concavity can indicate whether the CFS instability was off, had switched on before the observation, or switched on during the observation, even if the instability duration exceeds the observation span.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if real accretion impacts have extended radial and angular profiles, as the paper itself suggests, the expected strains are lower than equation (52), so the quoted numbers are best read as upper bounds rather than central estimates.
  • Editorial inference: the same Poisson shot-noise machinery could be transferred to other surface-impact sources, such as type I X-ray bursts or starquakes, to estimate their r-mode gravitational-wave output.
  • Editorial inference: the autocorrelation diagnostic does not require resolving the strain amplitude of individual clumps; it needs only a statistically long stretch of data, so it may become practical for accreting millisecond X-ray pulsars before the amplitude itself is detectable.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies gravitational waves from r-mode oscillations of a slowly rotating, barotropic Newtonian neutron star excited by stochastic impacts of accreted clumps. The authors formulate the linearized inhomogeneous mode problem, solve it with a Green's function for a point-like top-hat impact force, and compute the single-impact strain, the root-mean-square strain of a Poisson sequence of identical impacts, and the power spectral density of the resulting signal. The central quantitative result is Eq. (52), an rms strain scaling as roughly 10^-35 (ν_s/10 Hz)^2 (R_*/10 km)^2 (d/1 kpc)^-1 for fiducial parameters, which is below current LIGO sensitivity and comparable to strains from stochastically excited f-, p-, and g-modes. The paper also proposes a diagnostic based on the slope and concavity of the strain autocorrelation function to determine whether the Chandrasekhar-Friedman-Schutz instability coexists with impact-excited r-modes.

Significance. If the derivation holds, the paper provides a useful quantitative expectation for a previously unexplored r-mode excitation channel and gives a falsifiable scaling relation for continuous-wave searches. The analytical treatment is transparent: the Green's function solution, the use of current-multipole formalism, and the cancellation that makes the leading strain approximately EOS-independent are clearly laid out. The authors are also appropriately cautious about the idealized nature of the impact model, explicitly noting that extended impact profiles would likely reduce the amplitude. The main advertised deliverable beyond the strain estimate, however, is the CFS-coexistence diagnostic, and that part of the paper is not yet established because of a missing term in the autocorrelation analysis. The paper should be publishable after the Section 5 analysis is corrected or restricted.

major comments (1)
  1. [§5, Eq. (55) and Table 1] The statement that the dominant contribution to C_α(t,t′) is the second (same-impact) term in Eq. (40) is not valid for the CFS-unstable episode, because it silently carries over a reduction that is only justified when τ_α > 0. In the CFS-stable regime of Section 4.2, with ω_α τ_α ≫ 1, the first (distinct-impact) term of Eq. (40) is suppressed and Eq. (50) follows. During a CFS episode, however, τ_α,on < 0, and the single-impact response contains a factor exp[-(t-t_s)/τ_α,on] = exp[(t-t_s)/|τ_α,on|], which grows exponentially rather than decaying. For observation times after t_off, impacts that occurred during the episode contribute to the distinct-impact term, Eq. (41), an extra factor proportional to f_acc^2 |τ_α,on|^2 relative to the same-impact term used in Eq. (55), whose corresponding factor is f_acc |τ_α,on|; the ratio of the two is therefore of order f_acc |τ_α,on|. With the paper's own numbers, f_acc = 1 kHz and |τ_α,on| ≈ |τ_gw| ≈ 7×10^-7 (ν_s/1 kHz)^-6 yr, this ratio is about 2×10^4 at ν_s = 716 Hz. Thus Eq. (55) is not the dominant contribution during or after a CFS episode, and the sign of ∂C_α/∂t in Eq. (56), the entries of Table 1, and the concluding statement that a negative slope indicates CFS coexistence are not established. The diagnostic must be recomputed including the first term of Eq. (40), or explicitly restricted to a regime where that term is genuinely subdominant, such as a CFS-stable interval before the episode begins.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, discussion before Eq. (49)] The symbol m is used both for the spherical-harmonic index (l,m) and for the clump mass m = Mdot/f_acc; this is confusing in a paper about modes with m = 2. A different symbol, such as m_cl or μ, should be used for the clump mass.
  2. [Figure 1 and caption] The description of the color coding as an "illusion" and the statement that each peak is actually 601 overlapping peaks make the figure difficult to interpret. It would be clearer to plot a few representative damping timescales with distinct line styles or a legend, rather than relying on a gradient that the caption itself says is not visible.
  3. [§4.2, paragraph following Eq. (52)] In the sentence "with v_s = 0.5 kHz and Δt_acc = 10^6 yr," the symbol v_s appears to denote the spin frequency ν_s, not a velocity; the notation should be made consistent, and units should be attached to Δt_acc explicitly.
  4. [§3.2, paragraph after Eq. (38)] The assertion that extended radial and angular impact profiles are "likely to reduce the r-mode amplitude" is reasonable and important because it makes Eq. (52) an upper-bound-like estimate, but the word "likely" leaves the direction of the correction uncertain for angular profiles that could preferentially align with the eigenfunction; a brief justification or a reference for the spatial-averaging claim would strengthen the statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: h_rms and the CFS autocorrelation diagnostic are forward-model derivations from stated physical inputs, with only non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (52), is an analytic forward calculation. It combines standard r-mode eigenfunctions and normalization (Sections 2 and Appendix A), a Green's-function solution for the mode amplitude under a Poisson sequence of point-like top-hat impacts (Eqs. 36-39), and the standard current-multipole strain formula (Eqs. 44-48). The inputs (Mdot, f_acc, |v|, Delta t_acc, d, R*, nu_s) are stated physical parameters; no parameter is fitted to data, and no prediction is obtained by renaming an input. The shot-noise autocorrelation identity, Eq. (40), is cited to the authors' prior Dong & Melatos (2024), but it is a parameter-free Poisson-process result that does not assume the r-mode strain or the CFS diagnostic; it is independent support rather than a circular import. The Section 5 diagnostic (Eqs. 55-56, Table 1) is derived from the model's assumed exponential damping/growth response, so its slope and concavity encode the sign of tau_alpha by construction of the forward model; that is a model prediction, not a circular equivalence to an input. Explicit limitations, including the idealized point-impact force density in Section 3.2 and the shot-noise model caveats in Section 3.3, are stated by the authors and affect physical realism rather than circularity. A reviewer concern about omission of the distinct-impact term of Eq. (40) in the CFS-on regime is a technical dominance/correctness issue, not a circular reduction, and it does not change the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard r-mode theory plus several modeling choices specific to this paper. The most consequential are the point-impact shot-noise model and the insertion of an external damping timescale. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • r-mode damping timescale tau_alpha = not fitted; scanned over 1e-6 to 1e6 yr
    The saturated h_rms replaces Delta t_acc by tau_alpha/2, and the PSD peak height scales with tau_alpha. The paper does not compute tau_alpha from microphysics but treats it as an input spanning a wide range in Figure 1.
  • angular overlap factor |v_hat dot ((x cross grad) Y_22)| at the impact point = set to 1 in Figure 1; maximum physical value 0.77
    Equation (52) is proportional to this geometric factor, which depends on the unknown impact direction and location. The paper sets it to unity as an upper bound in the PSD figure.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Barotropic equation of state with zero Schwarzschild discriminant, A = 0 (equation 15), so pure axial r-modes exist and buoyancy is absent.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 to justify equation (13) and in Section 2.3 for the r-mode eigenfunctions. The authors note validity is marginal for accreting millisecond pulsars with N around 150-260 Hz.
  • domain assumption Slow-rotation approximation to first order in Omega for frequencies and eigenfunctions, with centrifugal distortion and Omega^2 terms dropped.
    Used throughout Sections 2.3 and 2.4 to derive omega_alpha = 2 m Omega / (l(l+1)) and U_lm proportional to r^(l+1). Rapid rotation and nonbarotropic corrections are deferred to future work.
  • ad hoc to paper The accretion impact force density is a point-like, top-hat impulse with all clumps having the same momentum, duration, and impact location, with Poisson arrival times (equations 38-39).
    This is the core stochastic excitation model. The authors acknowledge real accretion flows are extended and variable and that this idealization likely overestimates the r-mode amplitude through spatial averaging.
  • ad hoc to paper Phenomenological damping or growth is inserted into the Green's function response as exp[-(t-t')/tau_alpha] (Section 3.1, after equation 37).
    Viscous and gravitational radiation back reaction are not derived from the fluid equations; this factor is standard practice but introduces tau_alpha as an external input.
  • ad hoc to paper The CFS instability on/off transition is instantaneous, and tau_off is the same before and after the episode (equation 54).
    Used to derive equation (55) and the sign diagnostic in Section 5. The authors flag that tau_off being the same before and after the episode is likely inaccurate immediately after the CFS switches off.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational waves from r-mode oscillations of stochastically accreting neutron stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L2QDHEIL

@misc{pith2026250104968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational waves from r-mode oscillations of stochastically accreting neutron stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L2QDHEIL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04968}
}
abstract

$r$-mode oscillations in rotating neutron stars are a source of continuous gravitational radiation. We investigate the excitation of $r$-modes by the mechanical impact on the neutron star surface of stochastically accreted clumps of matter, assuming that the Chandrasekhar-Friedman-Schutz instability is not triggered. The star is idealised as a slowly-rotating, unmagnetised, one-component fluid with a barotropic equation of state in Newtonian gravity. It is found that the $r$-mode amplitude depends weakly on the equation of state but sensitively on the rotation frequency $\nu_{\rm s}$. The gravitational wave strain implicitly depends on the equation of state through the damping timescale. The root-mean-square strain is $h_{\rm rms} \approx 10^{-35} (\nu_{\rm s}/ 10 {\rm Hz})^{2} (R_*/10 {\rm km})^2 (\Delta t_{\rm acc}/1 {\rm yr})^{1/2} (f_{\rm acc}/1 {\rm kHz})^{-1/2} (\dot{M}/10^{-8} \text{M}_{\odot} \text{yr}^{-1}) (v/0.4c) (d/1 {\rm kpc})^{-1}$, which is comparable to the strain from $g$-, $p$- and $f$-modes excited by stochastic accretion, where $R_*$ is the radius of the star, $\Delta t_{\rm acc}$ is the uninterrupted duration of an accretion episode, $f_{\rm acc}$ is the mean clump impact frequency, $\dot{M}$ is the accretion rate, $v$ is the impact speed, and $d$ is the distance of the star from the Earth. An observational test is proposed, based on the temporal autocorrelation function of the gravitational wave signal, to discern whether the Chandrasekhar-Friedman-Schutz instability switches on and coexists with impact-excited $r$-modes before or during a gravitational wave observation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04968 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. , for three spin frequencies, viz. 𝜈s = 10Hz, 100Hz, and 716Hz1 , and 𝑟-modes with 𝑙 = 𝑚 = 2, 3, and 4. Each peak is actually 601 peaks, with 𝜏𝛼 spanning 10−6 ≤ 𝜏𝛼/(1 yr) ≤ 106 , which almost overlap. The color gradient along each peak, defined by the color bar at the right of the figure, describes how 𝑆( 𝑓 ) 1/2 near 𝑓 ≈ 𝜔𝛼/(2𝜋) varies with 𝜏𝛼 for multiple peaks. The difference in 𝑆( 𝑓 ) 1/2 away from the peak for … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    Abbott R., et al., 2021a, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac17ea , 921, 80

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac17ea

  4. [4]

    Abbott R., et al., 2021b, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0d52 , 922, 71

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0d52

  5. [5]

    G., Mahmoodifar S., Schwenzer K., 2012, @doi [Phys

    Alford M. G., Mahmoodifar S., Schwenzer K., 2012, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024007 , 85, 024007

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.024007 2012

  6. [6]

    Altiparmak S., Ecker C., Rezzolla L., 2022, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b2a , 939, L34

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b2a 2022

  7. [7]

    Andersson N., 1998, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/305919 , 502, 708

    doi:10.1086/305919 1998

  8. [9]

    Andersson N., Gittins F., 2023, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acbc1e , 945, 139

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbc1e 2023

Show all 98 references
  1. [10]

    E., Morsink S

    Arras P., Flanagan E. E., Morsink S. M., Schenk A. K., Teukolsky S. A., Wasserman I., 2003, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/374657 , 591, 1129

    2003 doi

  2. [11]

    Belloni T., Hasinger G., 1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 230, 103

    1990

  3. [12]

    Bildsten L., 1998, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/311440 , 501, L89

    1998 doi

  4. [13]

    Bildsten L., Ushomirsky G., 1999, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/312454 , 529, L33

    1999 doi

  5. [14]

    A., Wasserman I., 2007, @doi [Phys

    Bondarescu R., Teukolsky S. A., Wasserman I., 2007, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.064019 , 76, 064019

    2007 doi

  6. [15]

    o g \"u s E., G \

    Boztepe T., G \"o g \"u s E., G \"u ver T., Schwenzer K., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa2503 , 498, 2734

    2020 doi

  7. [16]

    J., Rajbhandari B., 2019, @doi [Phys

    Caride S., Inta R., Owen B. J., Rajbhandari B., 2019, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.064013 , 100, 064013

    2019 doi

  8. [17]

    Chambers F. R. N., Watts A. L., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3449 , 491, 6032

    2020 doi

  9. [18]

    B., Papa M

    Covas P. B., Papa M. A., Prix R., Owen B. J., 2022, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac62d7 , 929, L19

    2022 doi

  10. [19]

    R., Spruit H

    D'Angelo C. R., Spruit H. C., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16749.x , 406, 1208

    2010

  11. [20]

    Demmel V., Morfill G., Atmanspacher H., 1990, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/168718 , 354, 616

    1990 doi

  12. [21]

    Dong W., Melatos A., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae1028 , 530, 2822

    2024 doi

  13. [22]

    F., 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Dyson J., Schutz B. F., 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 368, 389

    1979

  14. [23]

    Evans M., et al., 2021, A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer : Science , Observatories , and Community ( @eprint arXiv 2109.09882 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2109.09882

    2021 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    A., 2020, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8193 , 895, 11

    Fesik L., Papa M. A., 2020, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8193 , 895, 11

    2020 doi

  16. [25]

    L., Morsink S

    Friedman J. L., Morsink S. M., 1998, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/305920 , 502, 714

    1998 doi

  17. [26]

    L., Schutz B

    Friedman J. L., Schutz B. F., 1978a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/156098 , 221, 937

    doi

  18. [27]

    L., Schutz B

    Friedman J. L., Schutz B. F., 1978b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/156143 , 222, 281

    doi

  19. [28]

    L., Stergioulas N., 2013, Rotating Relativistic Stars

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

    2013

  20. [29]

    L., Lindblom L., Rezzolla L., Chugunov A

    Friedman J. L., Lindblom L., Rezzolla L., Chugunov A. I., 2017, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.124008 , 96, 124008

    2017 doi

  21. [30]

    Ghosh S., Pathak D., Chatterjee D., 2023, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb0d3 , 944, 53

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

    Gittins F., Andersson N., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad672 , 521, 3043

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    457, The Physics and Astrophysics of Neutron Stars

    Glampedakis K., Gualtieri L., 2018, in , Vol. 457, The Physics and Astrophysics of Neutron Stars . Springer, Cham, pp 673--736 ( @eprint arXiv 1709.07049 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-97616-7_12

    2018 arXiv

  24. [33]

    E., Chugunov A

    Gusakov M. E., Chugunov A. I., Kantor E. M., 2014, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.063001 , 90, 063001

    2014 doi

  25. [35]

    Hessels J. W. T., Ransom S. M., Stairs I. H., Freire P. C. C., Kaspi V. M., Camilo F., 2006, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1123430 , 311, 1901

    2006 doi

  26. [36]

    S., 2002, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/342263 , 574, L57

    Heyl J. S., 2002, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/342263 , 574, L57

    2002 doi

  27. [37]

    S., 2004, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/379966 , 600, 939

    Heyl J. S., 2004, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/379966 , 600, 939

    2004 doi

  28. [38]

    Quantum Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094013 , 28, 094013

    Hild S., et al., 2011, @doi [Class. Quantum Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094013 , 28, 094013

    2011 doi

  29. [39]

    Ho W. C. G., Heinke C. O., Chugunov A. I., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3578 , 882, 128

    2019 doi

  30. [40]

    Ho W. C. G., Jones D. I., Andersson N., Espinoza C. M., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103009 , 101, 103009

    2020 doi

  31. [41]

    Hoshino M., Takeshima T., 1993, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/186917 , 411, L79

    1993 doi

  32. [42]

    J., Jones D

    Idrisy A., Owen B. J., Jones D. I., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.024001 , 91, 024001

    2015 doi

  33. [43]

    Kojima Y., 1998, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01119.x , 293, 49

    1998

  34. [45]

    K., Romanova M

    Kulkarni A. K., Romanova M. M., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13094.x , 386, 673

    2008

  35. [46]

    C., 2021, Unofficial O3 Sensitivity Curves , https://git.ligo.org/sensitivity-curves/o3-sensitivity-curves

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration V. C., 2021, Unofficial O3 Sensitivity Curves , https://git.ligo.org/sensitivity-curves/o3-sensitivity-curves

    2021

  36. [47]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.082005 , 105, 082005

    2022 doi

  37. [48]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [Phys

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and KAGRA Collaboration V. C., et al., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.022002 , 105, 022002

    2022 doi

  38. [49]

    K., Shibazaki N., Alpar M

    Lamb F. K., Shibazaki N., Alpar M. A., Shaham J., 1985, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/317681a0 , 317, 681

    1985 doi

  39. [50]

    Lazzati D., Stella L., 1997, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/303611 , 476, 267

    1997 doi

  40. [51]

    Lee U., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1077 , 442, 3037

    2014 doi

  41. [52]

    Levin Y., 1999, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/307196 , 517, 328

    1999 doi

  42. [54]

    R., 1999, @doi [Phys

    Lindblom L., Ipser J. R., 1999, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.044009 , 59, 044009

    1999 doi

  43. [55]

    Lindblom L., Mendell G., 2000, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.61.104003 , 61, 104003

    2000 doi

  44. [56]

    J., Morsink S

    Lindblom L., Owen B. J., Morsink S. M., 1998, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4843 , 80, 4843

    1998 doi

  45. [57]

    J., 1999, @doi [Phys

    Lindblom L., Mendell G., Owen B. J., 1999, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.064006 , 60, 064006

    1999 doi

  46. [58]

    C., Swank J

    Lochner J. C., Swank J. H., Szymkowiak A. E., 1991, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/170280 , 376, 295

    1991 doi

  47. [59]

    H., Friedman J

    Lockitch K. H., Friedman J. L., 1999, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/307580 , 521, 764

    1999 doi

  48. [60]

    H., Andersson N., Friedman J

    Lockitch K. H., Andersson N., Friedman J. L., 2000, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.024019 , 63, 024019

    2000 doi

  49. [61]

    H., Friedman J

    Lockitch K. H., Friedman J. L., Andersson N., 2003, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.124010 , 68, 124010

    2003 doi

  50. [62]

    P., 1967, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/136.3.293 , 136, 293

    Lynden-Bell D., Ostriker J. P., 1967, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/136.3.293 , 136, 293

    1967 doi

  51. [63]

    E., 1997, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/292.3.679 , 292, 679

    Lyubarskii Yu . E., 1997, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/292.3.679 , 292, 679

    1997 doi

  52. [64]

    Melatos A., Peralta C., 2009, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/77 , 709, 77

    2009 doi

  53. [65]

    Middleton H., Clearwater P., Melatos A., Dunn L., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023006 , 102, 023006

    2020 doi

  54. [66]

    E., Truemper J., Tenorio-Tagle G., Bodenheimer P., 1984, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 139, 7

    Morfill G. E., Truemper J., Tenorio-Tagle G., Bodenheimer P., 1984, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 139, 7

    1984

  55. [67]

    M., Rezania V., 2002, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/341190 , 574, 908

    Morsink S. M., Rezania V., 2002, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/341190 , 574, 908

    2002 doi

  56. [68]

    A., Ingram A., Suleimanov V

    Mushtukov A. A., Ingram A., Suleimanov V. F., DiLullo N., Middleton M., Tsygankov S. S., van der Klis M., Portegies Zwart S., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae781 , 530, 730

    2024 doi

  57. [69]

    A., Font J

    Nagar A., D \'i az G., Pons J. A., Font J. A., 2004, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.124028 , 69, 124028

    2004 doi

  58. [70]

    J., 2006, @doi [Phys

    Nayyar M., Owen B. J., 2006, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.084001 , 73, 084001

    2006 doi

  59. [71]

    Ortolani S., Barbuy B., Bica E., Zoccali M., Renzini A., 2007, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066628 , 470, 1043

    2007 doi

  60. [72]

    J., 2010, @doi [Phys

    Owen B. J., 2010, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.104002 , 82, 104002

    2010 doi

  61. [73]

    J., Lindblom L., Cutler C., Schutz B

    Owen B. J., Lindblom L., Cutler C., Schutz B. F., Vecchio A., Andersson N., 1998, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.084020 , 58, 084020

    1998 doi

  62. [74]

    E., 1978, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/182.3.423 , 182, 423

    Papaloizou J., Pringle J. E., 1978, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/182.3.423 , 182, 423

    1978 doi

  63. [75]

    I., Hawke I., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14408.x , 394, 730

    Passamonti A., Haskell B., Andersson N., Jones D. I., Hawke I., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14408.x , 394, 730

    2009

  64. [76]

    L., 2021, in Belloni T

    Patruno A., Watts A. L., 2021, in Belloni T. M., M \'e ndez M., Zhang C., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 461, Timing Neutron Stars: Pulsations, Oscillations and Explosions. pp 143--208 ( @eprint arXiv 1206.2727 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3_4

    2021 arXiv

  65. [77]

    I., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3593 , 527, 8409

    Pnigouras P., Gittins F., Nanda A., Andersson N., Jones D. I., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3593 , 527, 8409

    2024 doi

  66. [78]

    J., Caride S., Inta R., 2021, @doi [Phys

    Rajbhandari B., Owen B. J., Caride S., Inta R., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.122008 , 104, 122008

    2021 doi

  67. [79]

    Reisenegger A., Goldreich P., 1992, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/171645 , 395, 240

    1992 doi

  68. [80]

    Revnivtsev M., Churazov E., Postnov K., Tsygankov S., 2009, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912317 , 507, 1211

    2009 doi

  69. [81]

    K., Shapiro S

    Rezzolla L., Lamb F. K., Shapiro S. L., 2000, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/312539 , 531, L139

    2000 doi

  70. [82]

    Riles K., 2023, @doi [Living Rev Relativ] 10.1007/s41114-023-00044-3 , 26, 3

    2023 doi

  71. [83]

    M., Owocki S

    Romanova M. M., Owocki S. P., 2015, @doi [Space Sci Rev] 10.1007/s11214-015-0200-9 , 191, 339

    2015 doi

  72. [84]

    M., Ustyugova G

    Romanova M. M., Ustyugova G. V., Koldoba A. V., Lovelace R. V. E., 2004, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/421867 , 610, 920

    2004 doi

  73. [85]

    M., Kulkarni A

    Romanova M. M., Kulkarni A. K., Lovelace R. V. E., 2008, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/527298 , 673, L171

    2008 doi

  74. [86]

    Saio H., 1982, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/159945 , 256, 717

    1982 doi

  75. [87]

    K., Arras P., Flanagan \'E

    Schenk A. K., Arras P., Flanagan \'E . \'E ., Teukolsky S. A., Wasserman I., 2001, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.024001 , 65, 024001

    2001 doi

  76. [88]

    Schwenzer K., Boztepe T., G \"u ver T., Vurgun E., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw3201 , 466, 2560

    2017 doi

  77. [89]

    Shahbaz T., Dallilar Y., Garner A., Eikenberry S., Veledina A., Gandhi P., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty562 , 477, 566

    2018 doi

  78. [90]

    C., Taam R

    Spruit H. C., Taam R. E., 1993, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/172162 , 402, 593

    1993 doi

  79. [91]

    E., Lee U., 1996, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/177651 , 467, 773

    Strohmayer T. E., Lee U., 1996, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/177651 , 467, 773

    1996 doi

  80. [92]

    Strohmayer T., Mahmoodifar S., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/72 , 784, 72

    2014 doi

  81. [93]

    Sunyaev R., Revnivtsev M., 2000, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0003308 , 358, 617

    2000 doi arXiv

  82. [94]

    Princeton University Press

    Tassoul J.-L., 1978, Theory of Rotating Stars. Princeton University Press

    1978

  83. [95]

    Terrell Jr. N. J., 1972, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/180944 , 174, L35

    1972 doi

  84. [96]

    S., 1980, @doi [Rev

    Thorne K. S., 1980, @doi [Rev. Mod. Phys.] 10.1103/RevModPhys.52.299 , 52, 299

    1980 doi

  85. [97]

    M., 2001, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04496.x , 323, L26

    Uttley P., McHardy I. M., 2001, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04496.x , 323, L26

    2001

  86. [98]

    F., Melatos A., 2023, @doi [Phys

    Vargas A. F., Melatos A., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.064062 , 107, 064062

    2023 doi

  87. [99]

    V., 1984, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/161798 , 278, 345

    Wagoner R. V., 1984, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/161798 , 278, 345

    1984 doi

  88. [100]

    M., 1987, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 183, 257

    Wang Y. M., 1987, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 183, 257

    1987

  89. [101]

    Wette K., 2023, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2023.102880 , 153, 102880

    2023

  90. [102]

    Yoshida S., Lee U., 2000, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/313410 , 129, 353

    2000 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.