Rotation-Induced Effective Anisotropy in White Dwarfs as a Newtonian Benchmark with Relativistic Scale Assessment

Extracted source text · arXiv 2604.27956

\documentclass[aps,preprint,showkeys]{revtex4}

\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{physics}
\usepackage{float}

% must be LAST
\usepackage[colorlinks=true,linkcolor=blue,citecolor=blue]{hyperref}

\usepackage{placeins}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{document}
\newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

\title{Rotation-Induced Pressure Anisotropy in Newtonian White Dwarfs: Sequences and Applicability Criteria}

\author{ Aray Muratkhan$^{1}$, Saken Toktarbay$^{1*}$ and Hernando Quevedo$^{1,2,3}$}

\affiliation{
$^1$ Department of Theoretical and Nuclear Physics, \\
Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, 050040, Kazakhstan \\
$^2$ Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Aut\'onoma de M\'exico, AP 70543, M\'exico, DF 04510, Mexico \\
$^3$ Dipartimento di Fisica and ICRA, Universit\`a di Roma ``La Sapienza", I-00185 Roma, Italy \\
$^{*}$Corresponding author: {saken.toktarbay@kaznu.edu.kz}
}

\date{\today}

\begin{abstract}


We introduce a fast, one-dimensional Newtonian {reduced model} to capture uniform rotation in cold white dwarfs, encoding centrifugal support as an effective pressure anisotropy. Using
$\Delta_{\rm rot}(r)=\frac{1}{3}\rho(r)\Omega^2 r^2$ derived from the stationary Euler equation with
$\langle\sin^2\theta\rangle=2/3$, the model incorporates rotation into hydrostatic balance without a two-dimensional solver. Applying the Chandrasekhar degenerate-electron equation of state, we compute interior structures and global sequences for $ \rho_c \in [10^6, 10^{11}]~{\rm g\,cm^{-3}} $ 
with rotation proxies $f \le 0.35$, finding monotonic increases in limiting mass and radius, with a percent-level mass gain at $f = 0.35$. We quantify applicability using sub-Keplerian diagnostics evaluated on the rotating configurations, $\max(\Omega/\Omega_K)$ and $\max(\epsilon)$, together with a bulk-interior smallness measure
$A_{10^{-2}}\equiv \max_{p_r/p_c\ge 10^{-2}}(\Delta_{\rm rot}/p_r)$.
Within the scanned domain these diagnostics remain below unity.
The model is therefore best viewed as a reduced Newtonian benchmark for slow-to-moderate rotation, not as a replacement for fully axisymmetric calculations of rotating stars.
\end{abstract}



\keywords{White dwarfs, uniform rotation, pressure anisotropy, compact stars, stellar structure}

\maketitle

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Introduction}
White dwarfs (WDs) are commonly modeled as slowly rotating objects in standard  approaches. Observationally, however, WD spin periods span a wide range: most isolated field objects rotate on hours--days timescales, while a faster tail occurs in interacting binaries and accreting systems \cite{Hermes2017ApJS,Warner1995CVs}. This motivates a practical question relevant for surveys and for interpretation: when can rotation be neglected as a higher-order correction, and when does it induce a controlled, non-negligible shift in global observables such as the mass--radius and mass--central-density relations?

An accurate treatment of rotation is intrinsically a two-dimensional problem. Even in Newtonian gravity, rotation breaks spherical symmetry, deforms the surface, and introduces latitude-dependent stratification, so faithful equilibrium typically rely on slow-rotation expansions or dedicated axisymmetric solvers \cite{Hartle1967,HartleThorne1968,OstrikerBodenheimer1968,Hachisu1986ApJS}. At the same time, many applications are survey-driven, requiring rapid exploration across broad central-density grids and repeated sensitivity scans, where repeated two-dimensional computations may be impractical. A reduced approach is therefore useful, provided that it states explicitly what is being approximated and, crucially, delimits the regime in which the approximation remains physically meaningful.




In this work, we develop a minimal Newtonian model for cold, uniformly rotating WDs that is designed for fast one-dimensional surveys. The intent is not to replace two-dimensional equilibrium calculations, but to provide a reproducible one-dimensional benchmark that captures rotation-induced trends while embedding internal diagnostics that define a controlled slow-rotation domain. The construction starts from the stationary Euler equation in a uniformly rotating frame. Projecting onto the spherical radial direction and replacing the latitude dependence of the centrifugal term by its angular average $\langle\sin^2\theta\rangle=2/3$ yields an effective one-dimensional radial balance in which rotation enters as an additive term proportional to $\rho\Omega^2 r$. We incorporate this term within the Newtonian anisotropic hydrostatic form by introducing radial and tangential pressures $(p_r,p_t)$ and the anisotropy $\Delta\equiv p_t-p_r$, which leads to the rotation-induced mapping
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{\rm rot}(r)=\frac{1}{3}\rho(r)\Omega^2 r^2.
\label{eq:DeltaRot}
\end{equation}
Equation~\eqref{eq:DeltaRot} is regular at the origin and keeps the rotational input explicit through the spin frequency $\Omega$, enabling rapid scans without invoking a two-dimensional solver.

We close the structure equations with the Chandrasekhar cold degenerate-electron equation of state and compute equilibrium sequences over $\rho_c\in[10^6,10^{11}]~{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}$. For systematic sweeps, we parameterize rotation by the proxy
$f\equiv \Omega/\Omega_{K,0}(\rho_c)$, where $\Omega_{K,0}$ is a Kepler estimate constructed from the non-rotating baseline model at the same $\rho_c$. Because this proxy is defined with respect to the baseline rather than the rotating configuration, $f$ is not a physical bound by itself; admissibility must be assessed using diagnostics evaluated on the rotating solutions. We therefore monitor
\begin{equation}
\Omega_K(M,R)=\sqrt{\frac{GM}{R^3}},\qquad
\epsilon \equiv \frac{\Omega^2 R^3}{GM},
\label{eq:KeplerEps}
\end{equation}
and impose $\Omega/\Omega_K<1$ (equivalently $\epsilon<1$) as a hard consistency condition against mass shedding. In addition, since the mapping is intended as a slow-rotation approximation, we track whether the mapped term remains perturbative in the bulk interior through
\begin{equation}
A_{10^{-2}}\equiv \max_{p_r/p_c\ge 10^{-2}}\left(\frac{\Delta_{\rm rot}}{p_r}\right),
\label{eq: A10m2}
\end{equation}
which avoids contamination from the low-pressure surface layer and provides a direct internal check on the relative strength of the reduced model anisotropy where the global structure is set. Building on these measures, we construct a multi-criterion applicability envelope in $f$ and define a recommended slow-rotation domain for survey use, so that rotation is incorporated in a controlled and interpretable manner rather than by an arbitrary upper cut.

The speed and transparency of the reduced model come at the cost of geometric fidelity: by construction it is angle-averaged and does not model the axisymmetric deformation (equatorial bulge and polar flattening) of rotating WDs. We therefore interpret its outputs as controlled Newtonian trends and benchmarks, and we use the internal diagnostics above to delineate the regime where the approximation is expected to remain meaningful. This positioning also provides a clear baseline for future calibration against slow-rotation formalisms and multidimensional rotating equilibria \cite{Boshkayev2013ApJ}.
In this sense, the construction provides a simple benchmark for compact-object modelling. It recasts the averaged effect of uniform rotation as an effective anisotropic term in a one-dimensional hydrostatic model and makes the range of applicability explicit. The model should therefore be regarded as a controlled Newtonian baseline for slow-to-moderate rotation, rather than as a complete description of rapidly rotating white dwarfs.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section~II reviews the non-rotating Newtonian baseline and equation of state. Section~III derives the rotation--anisotropy mapping and presents representative interior profiles. Sections~III, IV, and V report the global sequences and the extracted saturation readout, and Section~IV introduces the applicability diagnostics and the multi-criterion envelope. Section~VI discusses limitations and prospects.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\section{Non-rotating isotropic Newtonian white dwarfs}
\label{sec:baseline}

We begin with a reference sequence of non-rotating, isotropic Newtonian white dwarfs supported by cold electron
degeneracy pressure at fixed composition \citep{Chandrasekhar1931,Chandrasekhar1939,ShapiroTeukolsky1983}. This baseline provides the benchmark families $M(\rho_c)$ and $R(\rho_c)$,
and the corresponding mass--radius relation $M(R)$, against which the rotation-induced models are compared
\citep{HamadaSalpeter1961}.
Throughout we assume a constant mean molecular weight per electron $\mu_e$ (e.g. $\mu_e\simeq 2$ for CO compositions)
and a barotropic equation of state $p=p(\rho)$ \citep{Chandrasekhar1939,ShapiroTeukolsky1983}.

\subsection{Structure equations}
\label{subsec:baseline_eqs}

Under spherical symmetry and hydrostatic equilibrium, the stellar structure is governed by the equilibrium equations
\begin{align}
\frac{\dd p}{\dd r} &= - \frac{G\, m(r)\, \rho(r)}{r^2},
\label{eq:hse_newton_base}\\
\frac{\dd m}{\dd r} &= 4\pi r^2 \rho(r),
\label{eq:mass_cont_base}
\end{align}
with conditions $m(0)=0$ and $\rho(0)=\rho_c$ at the center of the source. The stellar surface is defined by
\begin{equation}
p(R)=0,\qquad M \equiv m(R).
\label{eq:surface_base}
\end{equation}
Equations \eqref{eq:hse_newton_base}--\eqref{eq:surface_base} are closed by the Chandrasekhar degenerate-electron
equation of state summarized below \citep{Chandrasekhar1939,ShapiroTeukolsky1983}.

\subsection{Chandrasekhar equation of state}
\label{subsec:baseline_eos}

We use the standard parametric form in terms of the relativity parameter
\begin{equation}
x \equiv \frac{p_F}{m_e c},
\end{equation}
where $m_e$ and $p_F$ are the electron mass and the electron Fermi momentum, respectively. The pressure and density are then written as
\begin{align}
p(x) &= K\left[x(2x^2-3)\sqrt{1+x^2}+3\sinh^{-1}(x)\right],
\label{eq:chandra_p_base}\\
\rho(x) &= \rho_0\,x^3,
\label{eq:chandra_rho_base}
\end{align}
with constants
\begin{equation}
K=\frac{\pi m_e^4 c^5}{3h^3},\qquad
\rho_0=\mu_e m_u\,\frac{8\pi (m_e c)^3}{3h^3}
\label{eq:K_rho0_base}
\end{equation}
\citep{Chandrasekhar1939,ShapiroTeukolsky1983}.
Thus the barotrope $p(\rho)$ is obtained via $x=(\rho/\rho_0)^{1/3}$ \citep{Chandrasekhar1939}.

\subsection{Dimensionless form}
\label{subsec:baseline_dimless}

This particular representation of the structure equations is obtained by using the notation 
\begin{equation}
\rho=\rho_0 x^3,\qquad
p=K\,\phi(x),\qquad
\phi(x)\equiv x(2x^2-3)\sqrt{1+x^2}+3\sinh^{-1}(x)
\end{equation}
together with the length and mass scales
\begin{equation}
a \equiv \sqrt{\frac{K}{4\pi G\,\rho_0^2}},\qquad
m_0 \equiv 4\pi \rho_0 a^3,
\label{eq:scales}
\end{equation}
and introducing the variables
\begin{equation}
\bar r \equiv \frac{r}{a},\qquad
\bar m \equiv \frac{m}{m_0}.
\end{equation}
Then, the structure equations become
\begin{align}
\frac{\dd x}{\dd \bar r} &= -\frac{\bar m\, x^3}{\bar r^2}\left(\frac{\dd \phi}{\dd x}\right)^{-1},
\label{eq:dxdr_dimless}\\
\frac{\dd \bar m}{\dd \bar r} &= \bar r^2 x^3,
\label{eq:dmdr_dimless}
\end{align}
with $x(0)=x_c=(\rho_c/\rho_0)^{1/3}$ and $\bar m(0)=0$.
The solutions of this set of equations  define the reference sequence $(M_0(\rho_c),R_0(\rho_c))$ used below \citep{Chandrasekhar1939,ShapiroTeukolsky1983}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%




\section{Rotation-induced anisotropy in Newtonian white dwarfs}
\label{sec:rotation_anisotropy}

We incorporate uniform rotation through a one-dimensional model mapping that replaces the angle-averaged
centrifugal support by an effective pressure anisotropy \citep{Tassoul1978,Chandrasekhar1969}. In this construction, the gravitational sector and the mass
continuity remain spherically symmetric; rotation enters only through the mapped term derived below.

\subsection{Angle-averaged radial balance}
\label{subsec:rot_euler}

In a uniformly rotating frame, the Newtonian Euler equation reads
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\rho}\nabla p = -\nabla \Phi + \Omega^2 \varpi\,\hat{\bm{\varpi}},
\end{equation}
where $\varpi=r\sin\theta$ \citep{Tassoul1978}. Projecting onto the spherical radial direction gives
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial p}{\partial r}
=
-\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial r}
+
\Omega^2 r\sin^2\theta.
\end{equation}
We then replace the latitude dependence of the centrifugal term by its angular average
$\langle \sin^2\theta \rangle=2/3$, obtaining the effective one-dimensional balance
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}p}{\mathrm{d}r}
=
-\rho\,\frac{\mathrm{d}\Phi}{\mathrm{d}r}
+
\frac{2}{3}\rho\,\Omega^2 r.
\label{eq:avg_balance}
\end{equation}
\citep{Tassoul1978,Chandrasekhar1969}.

\subsection{Mapping to anisotropic hydrostatic equilibrium}
\label{subsec:rot_mapping}

Introduce radial and tangential pressures $(p_r,p_t)$ and the anisotropy function
\begin{equation}
\Delta(r)\equiv p_t(r)-p_r(r).
\end{equation}
The Newtonian anisotropic hydrostatic equation is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}p_r}{\mathrm{d}r}
=
-\rho\,\frac{\mathrm{d}\Phi}{\mathrm{d}r}
+
\frac{2}{r}\Delta(r).
\label{eq:aniso_hse}
\end{equation}
\citep{BowersLiang1974}.
Comparing Eqs.~\eqref{eq:avg_balance} and \eqref{eq:aniso_hse}, we identify the rotation-induced effective anisotropy
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{\rm rot}(r)=\frac{1}{3}\rho(r)\Omega^2 r^2,
\label{eq:delta_rot}
\end{equation}
which is regular at the origin \citep{BowersLiang1974}. In this reduced model, the barotropic equation of state is applied to the radial pressure,
$p_r=p(\rho)$ (Sec.~\ref{subsec:baseline_eos}), while the tangential component follows as $p_t=p_r+\Delta_{\rm rot}$.

\subsection{Structure equations with rotation-induced anisotropy}
\label{subsec:rot_structure}

The mass equation remains unchanged,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}m}{\mathrm{d}r} = 4\pi r^2\rho(r).
\label{eq:mass_cont_rot}
\end{equation}
To close the one-dimensional system, we adopt the spherical potential gradient
$\mathrm{d}\Phi/\mathrm{d}r = Gm(r)/r^2$, consistent with the spherically symmetric gravitational sector retained in the
reduced model. The radial force balance becomes
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}p_r}{\mathrm{d}r}
=
-\frac{Gm(r)\rho(r)}{r^2}
+
\frac{2}{3}\rho(r)\Omega^2 r,
\label{eq:hse_rot_final}
\end{equation}
with $p_r=p(\rho)$ from Sec.~\ref{subsec:baseline_eos}.

\subsection{Rotation diagnostics and admissibility}
\label{subsec:rot_applicability}

For each configuration we monitor the dimensionless rotation parameter
\begin{equation}
\epsilon \equiv \frac{\Omega^2 R^3}{GM},
\label{eq:epsilon_rot}
\end{equation}
and enforce the mass-shedding (Kepler) bound evaluated on the rotating $(M,R)$,
\begin{equation}
\Omega < \Omega_K(M,R)\equiv \sqrt{\frac{GM}{R^3}}
\qquad \Longleftrightarrow \qquad
\epsilon < 1.
\label{eq:kepler_rot}
\end{equation}
\citep{Tassoul1978,Chandrasekhar1969}.
We also track the interior ratio $\Delta_{\rm rot}/p_r$ as a practical smallness indicator for the mapped term.

\subsection{Numerical implementation and robustness checks}
\label{subsec:numerical_details}

We integrate Eqs.~\eqref{eq:mass_cont_rot} and \eqref{eq:hse_rot_final} outward from $(m(0)=0,\rho(0)=\rho_c)$.
In practice, we solve the dimensionless system using the variables introduced in Sec.~\ref{subsec:baseline_dimless},
starting at a small radius $\bar r_0=10^{-8}$ using a regular central expansion. The integration is terminated when the
Chandrasekhar parameter becomes sufficiently small,
\begin{equation}
x(\bar r)=x_{\rm stop},\qquad x_{\rm stop}=10^{-10},
\end{equation}
which corresponds to $p(R)\approx 0$ and $\rho(R)\approx 0$ to within solver tolerances.

For global scans we sample $\log_{10}\rho_c\in[6,11]$ in steps of $0.25$ dex. As basic robustness checks, we (i) tighten
solver tolerances for representative models, (ii) increase the maximum integration radius, and (iii) locally refine the
density sampling near the high-density end. Within the numerical resolution of these checks, the tabulated readout and
the trends with the rotation proxy remain stable.

For each model we store $(M,R)$, interior profiles, and the diagnostics $\epsilon$ and $\Omega/\Omega_K(M,R)$.

\paragraph{Remark on the surface behavior.}
Equation~\eqref{eq:delta_rot} does not enforce $\Delta_{\rm rot}(R)=0$. When desired, we apply a smooth taper
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{\rm rot}(r)\rightarrow \Delta_{\rm rot}(r)\,T(r),\qquad
T(r)=1-\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^n,
\end{equation}
with $n=2$ unless stated otherwise, and check that $(M,R)$ vary only at the level of numerical resolution for the
sequences reported below.

\paragraph{Interior profiles.}
Figures~\ref{fig:rho_rho}--\ref{fig:delta} show representative dimensionless profiles versus $r/R$ for several rotation
rates. Having established the qualitative impact of rotation on the interior structure, we next present global
$M(\rho_c)$ and $R(\rho_c)$ sequences and extract the limiting readout used later for applicability diagnostics.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig.1
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plots2/class_rho_rho.eps}
\caption{Normalized density profile $\rho(r)/\rho_c$ as a function of $r/R$ for several uniform rotation rates $\Omega$
(see legend). Solutions are obtained from Eqs.~\eqref{eq:mass_cont_rot}--\eqref{eq:hse_rot_final}, with rotation
incorporated through Eq.~\eqref{eq:delta_rot}.}
\label{fig:rho_rho}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig.2
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plots2/class_p_p.eps}
\caption{Normalized radial pressure profile $p_r(r)/p_c$ versus $r/R$ for the same set of rotation rates as in
Fig.~\ref{fig:rho_rho}, where $p_c\equiv p_r(0)$.}
\label{fig:p_p}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig.3
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plots2/class_m_m.eps}
\caption{Cumulative enclosed mass fraction $m(r)/M$ as a function of $r/R$ for different rotation rates.}
\label{fig:m_m}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig.4
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plots2/class_delta.eps}
\caption{Rotation-induced effective anisotropy $\Delta_{\rm rot}(r)/p_c$ versus $r/R$ for several rotation rates.}
\label{fig:delta}
\end{figure}

\FloatBarrier

\subsection{Global sequences and Chandrasekhar benchmark}
\label{subsec:global_sequences}

We parameterize rotation by the proxy
\begin{equation}
f \equiv \frac{\Omega}{\Omega_{K,0}(\rho_c)}, \qquad
\Omega_{K,0}(\rho_c)=\sqrt{\frac{G M_0(\rho_c)}{R_0(\rho_c)^3}},
\end{equation}
where $(M_0(\rho_c),R_0(\rho_c))$ are taken from the non-rotating baseline sequence at the same $\rho_c$.
Because $f$ is defined with respect to the baseline estimate, it does not coincide identically with
$\Omega/\Omega_K(M,R)$ of the rotating configurations. We therefore evaluate $\Omega/\Omega_K(M,R)$ (or equivalently
$\epsilon$) for every model and retain only those satisfying $\Omega/\Omega_K<1$ \citep{Tassoul1978}.

For the global scans we sample $\rho_c\in[10^{6},10^{11}]\,{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}$ with step $0.25$ dex and consider
$f=\{0,0.15,0.25,0.35\}$.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig.5
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plots2/sprint_fig1.eps}
\caption{Total mass $M$ (in units of $M_\odot$) as a function of the central density $\rho_c$ for rotation rates
parameterized by $f\equiv \Omega/\Omega_{K,0}(\rho_c)$ (legend). The dashed curve ($f=0$) shows the baseline sequence.}
\label{fig:sprint_fig1}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig.6
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plots2/sprint_fig2.eps}
\caption{Radius $R$ (km) as a function of $\rho_c$ for the same set of rotation fractions as in
Fig.~\ref{fig:sprint_fig1}.}
\label{fig:sprint_fig2}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig.7
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plots2/sprint_fig3.eps}
\caption{Mass--radius relation $M(R)$ for sequences at fixed $f$, compared to the non-rotating baseline ($f=0$).}
\label{fig:sprint_fig3}
\end{figure}

\subsubsection{Quantitative readout and limiting configurations}
\label{subsubsec:quant_readout}

Figures~\ref{fig:sprint_fig1}--\ref{fig:sprint_fig3} quantify the impact of the rotation--anisotropy mapping on global
sequences. Across the explored grid, the Newtonian Chandrasekhar sequence approaches a high-density saturation regime;
the corresponding limiting readout at the high-density edge of the scan ($\log_{10}\rho_c=11$) is summarized in
Table~\ref{tab:summary}. Within the explored range, the limiting mass and radius increase monotonically with $f$, while
all retained families remain sub-Keplerian according to $\max(\Omega/\Omega_K)<1$ and $\max(\epsilon)<1$.

\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Summary of the limiting (high-density saturation) readout extracted from the fixed-$f$ sequences shown in
Figs.~\ref{fig:sprint_fig1}--\ref{fig:sprint_fig3}. Here $f\equiv \Omega/\Omega_{K,0}(\rho_c)$. The limiting quantities
are evaluated at the high-density edge of the explored grid ($\log_{10}\rho_c=11$), where the Newtonian Chandrasekhar
sequence saturates. The mass increase is reported relative to the baseline ($f=0$). The last three columns report
global sub-Keplerian diagnostics and an interior smallness measure of the reduced model term,
$\mathcal{A}_{10^{-2}}\equiv \max(\Delta_{\rm rot}/p_r)$ restricted to $p_r/p_c\ge 10^{-2}$, which avoids the trivial
divergence in the low-pressure surface layer.}
\label{tab:summary}
\begin{tabular}{|c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c|}
\hline\hline
$f$ & $M_{\rm lim}\,[M_\odot]$ & $R_{\rm lim}\,[{\rm km}]$ & $\log_{10}\rho_{c,\rm lim}$ &
$\Delta M_{\rm lim}[\%]$ & $\max(\Omega/\Omega_K)$ & $\max(\epsilon)$ & $\mathcal{A}_{10^{-2}}$ \\
\hline
0.00 & 1.45072 & 662.771 & 11.00 & 0.0000 & ---     & ---      & 0 \\
0.15 & 1.45384 & 666.374 & 11.00 & 0.2153 & 0.15106 & 0.0228198 & 0.05147 \\
0.25 & 1.45947 & 673.117 & 11.00 & 0.6036 & 0.25511 & 0.0650801 & 0.14432 \\
0.35 & 1.46813 & 684.176 & 11.00 & 1.2002 & 0.36491 & 0.133158  & 0.28436 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Stability criteria and implementation}
\label{sec:stability}

This section defines the operational readout used to summarize stability/applicability within our Newtonian,
one-dimensional (angle-averaged) reduced model and specifies how the limiting (high-density saturation) quantities are
extracted from the computed equilibrium families. The gravitational sector and mass continuity remain spherically
symmetric; rotation enters only through the effective term derived in Sec.~\ref{sec:rotation_anisotropy}.

%--------------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{Scope and stability notion}
\label{subsec:stability_scope}

For Newtonian degenerate stars at fixed microphysics, radial stability along a one-parameter equilibrium sequence is
often discussed via a turning-point argument \citep{FriedmanIpserSorkin1988}. In the Newtonian Chandrasekhar model, however, the mass approaches an
asymptotic limiting value at high central density \citep{Chandrasekhar1931,Chandrasekhar1939,ShapiroTeukolsky1983}, and finite scans can display a saturation plateau rather than a
sharply localized interior maximum. Accordingly, when the discrete maximum of $M(\rho_c;f)$ occurs at the upper edge
of the sampled domain, we interpret it as a high-density saturation estimate within the explored range rather than as
a sharply identified turning point.

%--------------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{Limiting readout for fixed-$f$ sequences}
\label{subsec:limiting_readout}

For each fixed-$f$ family, we define the limiting (saturation) readout
\begin{equation}
M_{\rm lim}(f)\equiv \max_{\rho_c} M(\rho_c;f),\qquad
\rho_{c,\rm lim}(f)\equiv \arg\max_{\rho_c} M(\rho_c;f),\qquad
R_{\rm lim}(f)\equiv R\!\left(\rho_{c,\rm lim}(f);f\right).
\label{eq:limiting_def}
\end{equation}
Operationally, $M_{\rm lim}$ is identified as the discrete maximum of $M(\log_{10}\rho_c;f)$ on the scanned grid. In the
present scans the maximum occurs at $\log_{10}\rho_c=11$, hence $(M_{\rm lim},R_{\rm lim})$ should be interpreted as
saturation estimates in the explored domain. The consolidated readout is reported in Table~\ref{tab:summary}.

%--------------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{Physical constraints and empirical context}
\label{subsec:newtonian_rotation_constraints}

Uniform rotation in Newtonian stellar structure is constrained by physically transparent bounds and by empirical
evidence on the spin distribution of white dwarfs \citep{Hermes2017ApJS,Warner1995CVs}. These considerations are important for interpreting one-dimensional
reduced model approaches---including the present rotation--anisotropy mapping---because they delimit the physically
admissible regime and motivate conservative ``slow-rotation'' choices in parameter surveys.

A robust admissibility requirement is sub-Keplerian rotation, which prevents mass shedding at the equator \citep{Tassoul1978}. In practice,
this bound must be evaluated on the \emph{rotating} configuration and is implemented below through diagnostics based on
$\Omega/\Omega_K(M,R)$ (or equivalently $\epsilon$).

Beyond mass shedding, rapidly rotating Newtonian self-gravitating bodies may become unstable to non-axisymmetric
deformations. A commonly used indicator is the ratio of rotational kinetic energy to gravitational binding energy,
$T/|W|$, for which classical analyses of uniformly rotating configurations suggest benchmark values of order
$T/|W|\sim 0.1$--$0.3$ for the onset of secular and dynamical bar-mode instabilities \citep{Chandrasekhar1969,LaiRasioShapiro1993,OstrikerPeebles1973}. In the present work we treat these
thresholds as qualitative context only: we do not adopt $T/|W|$ as a hard cut in the one-dimensional survey, but the
existence of such instability channels motivates conservative slow-rotation envelopes and a dedicated calibration
against axisymmetric equilibria \citep{Chandrasekhar1969,Tassoul1978}.

Observed white dwarfs span a broad range of spin periods. Population-level studies indicate that most field objects
rotate slowly (hours to days), whereas a smaller set of compact binaries and accreting systems can reach much shorter
periods (seconds to minutes) \citep{Hermes2017ApJS,Warner1995CVs}. This motivates a two-tier modeling strategy: a controlled slow-rotation domain where
rotation can be treated perturbatively and surveyed efficiently, and a fast-rotation tail where multidimensional
equilibria and/or systematic slow-rotation expansions become necessary \citep{Tassoul1978,Hachisu1986ApJS}.

%--------------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{Applicability diagnostics}
\label{subsec:applicability_diagnostics}

Although the rotation proxy $f\equiv \Omega/\Omega_{K,0}(\rho_c)$ is convenient for parameter scans, physical
admissibility must be assessed on the rotating configuration $(M,R)$. For every computed model we therefore evaluate
\begin{equation}
\Omega_K(M,R)=\sqrt{\frac{GM}{R^3}},\qquad
\epsilon \equiv \frac{\Omega^2 R^3}{GM},
\label{eq:OmegaK_eps}
\end{equation}
and record $\max(\Omega/\Omega_K)$ and $\max(\epsilon)$ along each fixed-$f$ family (Table~\ref{tab:summary}). All
reported families satisfy $\Omega/\Omega_K<1$ (equivalently $\epsilon<1$) \citep{Tassoul1978}.

A complementary bulk-interior smallness measure monitors the perturbative character of the mapped anisotropy term,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_{\eta}\equiv \max_{p_r/p_c\ge \eta}\left(\frac{\Delta_{\rm rot}}{p_r}\right),
\qquad \eta=10^{-2},
\label{eq:Aeta_def_env_app}
\end{equation}
which excludes the low-pressure surface layer where $p_r\to 0$ and $\Delta_{\rm rot}/p_r$ becomes dominated by a
trivial boundary effect. The resulting $\mathcal{A}_{10^{-2}}$ values are reported in Table~\ref{tab:summary}.

\paragraph{Sensitivity check.}
Varying the cutoff within $\eta\in[10^{-3},10^{-2}]$ does not change the qualitative conclusions: $\mathcal{A}_\eta$
remains below unity and increases monotonically with $f$ in the scanned range.

%--------------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{Numerical extraction and robustness}
\label{subsec:stability_numerics}

Equilibrium sequences are computed on the logarithmic grid $\rho_c\in[10^{6},10^{11}]\,{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}$ with step
$0.25$ dex. We extract $(M_{\rm lim},R_{\rm lim},\rho_{c,\rm lim})$ via Eq.~\eqref{eq:limiting_def}, and record
$\max(\Omega/\Omega_K)$, $\max(\epsilon)$, and $\mathcal{A}_{10^{-2}}$ for each family (Table~\ref{tab:summary}). Spot
checks with tighter solver tolerances and locally refined density sampling near the high-density end confirm that the
limiting readout is stable within the quoted numerical precision in the present Newtonian setup.

%--------------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{Two-dimensional benchmark: axisymmetric Newtonian equilibria}
\label{subsec:benchmark_2D}

The one-dimensional rotation--anisotropy mapping is designed for fast surveys, but it necessarily discards the
axisymmetric deformation of uniformly rotating configurations. To calibrate the trend-level accuracy of the reduced model
and to delineate its quantitative applicability range, we outline an axisymmetric Newtonian benchmark for the same
microphysics (cold Chandrasekhar equation of state) and the same uniform-rotation assumption \citep{Tassoul1978,Hachisu1986ApJS,OstrikerBodenheimer1968}.

\subsubsection{Two-dimensional equilibrium formulation}
\label{subsubsec:2D_formulation}

In Newtonian gravity, an axisymmetric, stationary, uniformly rotating barotrope satisfies the first integral
\begin{equation}
H(\rho) + \Phi - \frac{1}{2}\Omega^2 \varpi^2 = C,
\label{eq:2D_first_integral}
\end{equation}
where $\varpi$ is the cylindrical radius, $\Phi$ is the gravitational potential, and
\begin{equation}
H(\rho)\equiv \int_{0}^{\rho}\frac{dp}{\rho'}
\label{eq:enthalpy_def}
\end{equation}
is the specific enthalpy (for a barotropic Chandrasekhar EoS, $p=p(\rho)$) \citep{Tassoul1978,Hachisu1986ApJS}. The potential is determined by Poisson's
equation,
\begin{equation}
\nabla^2\Phi = 4\pi G\rho.
\label{eq:poisson}
\end{equation}
Equations \eqref{eq:2D_first_integral}--\eqref{eq:poisson} define a closed system for $\rho(\varpi,z)$ and $\Phi(\varpi,z)$
once a rotation rate $\Omega$ and a central density $\rho_c$ are specified, with the constant $C$ fixed by a surface
condition (e.g.\ $H=0$ on the stellar boundary) \citep{Tassoul1978}.

\subsubsection{Numerical method and convergence}
\label{subsubsec:2D_numerics}

A standard approach is a self-consistent field (SCF) iteration on a cylindrical grid $(\varpi,z)$: starting from an
initial density distribution with prescribed $\rho_c$ and a trial surface, one computes $\Phi$ from
Eq.~\eqref{eq:poisson}, updates the enthalpy field using Eq.~\eqref{eq:2D_first_integral}, and reconstructs the density
via the EoS inversion $\rho=\rho(H)$ until convergence \citep{OstrikerBodenheimer1968,Hachisu1986ApJS}. Convergence can be monitored through (i) the maximum fractional
change of $(M,R_{\rm eq},R_{\rm p})$ between successive iterations and (ii) the residual of
Eq.~\eqref{eq:2D_first_integral} in the stellar interior. Robustness can be assessed by repeating representative models
at increased grid resolution and confirming stability of benchmark observables within the quoted numerical precision.

\subsubsection{Benchmark observables and comparison method}
\label{subsubsec:2D_outputs}

Two-dimensional equilibria provide distinct geometric radii: the equatorial radius $R_{\rm eq}$ and the polar radius
$R_{\rm p}$. For comparison to the one-dimensional reduced model, it is convenient to define a volume-equivalent radius
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm vol}\equiv \left(\frac{3V}{4\pi}\right)^{1/3},
\label{eq:Rvol_def}
\end{equation}
where $V$ is the stellar volume in the two-dimensional equilibrium. Rotational deformation can be summarized by the oblateness
$\mathcal{O}\equiv R_{\rm eq}/R_{\rm p}$ \citep{Chandrasekhar1969,Tassoul1978}. For mass-shedding proximity we evaluate $\Omega/\Omega_K$ on the two-dimensional
configuration, with $\Omega_K\equiv \sqrt{GM/R_{\rm eq}^3}$ as a conservative estimate \citep{Tassoul1978}.

For a representative set of central densities and slow-rotation rates, we compare model outputs $(M_{\rm 1D},R_{\rm 1D})$
to the two-dimensional outputs $(M_{\rm 2D},R_{\rm vol,2D})$ via
\begin{equation}
\delta_M \equiv \frac{M_{\rm 1D}-M_{\rm 2D}}{M_{\rm 2D}},\qquad
\delta_R \equiv \frac{R_{\rm 1D}-R_{\rm vol,2D}}{R_{\rm vol,2D}}.
\label{eq:deltaMR_def}
\end{equation}
These diagnostics provide a calibration of the reduced model accuracy as a function of rotation strength and allow the
recommended slow-rotation envelope inferred from one-dimensional criteria to be cross-checked against the onset of
significant two-dimensional deformation \citep{Hachisu1986ApJS}.

\subsubsection{Validation grid}
\label{subsubsec:2D_grid}

To keep the benchmark computationally focused while spanning the relevant regimes, we consider a small but
representative set of models across logarithmically spaced central densities (covering the non-relativistic to
relativistic-degenerate transition) and multiple slow-rotation rates (e.g.\ $\Omega/\Omega_K\lesssim 0.3$). The resulting
$\delta_M$, $\delta_R$, and $\mathcal{O}$ trends can then be reported alongside the one-dimensional applicability
diagnostics, providing a direct calibration of the reduced model in the domain where it is intended to be used \citep{Hachisu1986ApJS,OstrikerBodenheimer1968}.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Quasi-two-dimensional consistency check}
\label{subsec:quasi2D_check}

As a practical supplement to the one-dimensional applicability diagnostics, we carried out a corrected quasi-two-dimensional reconstruction for a small representative set of models. The purpose of this test is not to replace a fully self-consistent axisymmetric benchmark, but to provide an auxiliary quantitative check on the one-dimensional rotation--anisotropy reduced model in the slow-rotation regime.

For each selected central density, we first computed the corresponding non-rotating spherical background model and used its gravitational potential as a reference field. An approximate axisymmetric enthalpy distribution was then constructed in cylindrical coordinates by adding the centrifugal contribution to this background potential. From the resulting density field, we evaluated an approximate two-dimensional mass, $M_{2D}^{\mathrm{approx}}$, and a volume-equivalent radius, $R_{\mathrm{vol},2D}^{\mathrm{approx}}$. These were compared with the directly computed one-dimensional quantities $(M_{1D},R_{1D})$ through
\begin{equation}
\delta M \equiv \frac{M_{1D}-M_{2D}^{\mathrm{approx}}}{M_{2D}^{\mathrm{approx}}},
\qquad
\delta R \equiv \frac{R_{1D}-R_{\mathrm{vol},2D}^{\mathrm{approx}}}{R_{\mathrm{vol},2D}^{\mathrm{approx}}}.
\label{eq:deltaMR_quasi2D}
\end{equation}

The comparison was performed for the sampled set
\[
\rho_c=10^{6},\,10^{8},\,10^{10},\,10^{11}\ {\rm g\,cm^{-3}},
\qquad
f=\Omega/\Omega_K=\{0.1,\,0.2,\,0.3\}.
\]
Over this set, both discrepancies remain small and increase systematically with the rotation fraction. The mass difference stays within
\[
|\delta M|\lesssim 3.03\times 10^{-3},
\]
while the radius difference remains within
\[
|\delta R|\lesssim 1.12\times 10^{-2}.
\]
The dependence on the sampled central-density range is weak compared with the dependence on $f$, which is consistent with the expected gradual loss of accuracy of a one-dimensional reduced model as rotational deformation becomes more important.

The behavior of $\delta M$ and $\delta R$ is shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:fig8} and \ref{fig:fig9}, while the maximum absolute discrepancies at each tested rotation fraction are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:quasi2D_summary}. Within the explored slow-rotation range, the one-dimensional reduced model remains very close to the reconstructed quasi-two-dimensional values in mass, and the radius discrepancy stays at the percent level. This supports the use of the present mapping for controlled parameter surveys in the low-to-moderate rotation domain.

At the same time, the comparison should be interpreted conservatively. Since the reconstruction is based on a fixed spherical background potential rather than on a fully self-consistent axisymmetric solution of Eqs.~\eqref{eq:2D_first_integral}--\eqref{eq:poisson}, it should be viewed as an auxiliary calibration rather than as a definitive multidimensional validation. For this reason, quantities tied directly to the detailed stellar shape, such as the oblateness, are not used here as primary validation metrics.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%fig8
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plots2/dM.eps}
\caption{Relative mass discrepancy between the one-dimensional reduced model and the corrected quasi-two-dimensional reconstruction as a function of the rotation fraction $f=\Omega/\Omega_K$, for the sampled set of central densities $\rho_c=10^6,10^8,10^{10},10^{11}\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$. The discrepancy remains at the $10^{-3}$ level over the tested range and increases systematically with $f$.}
\label{fig:fig8}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%fig9
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plots2/dR.eps}
\caption{Relative radius discrepancy between the one-dimensional reduced model and the corrected quasi-two-dimensional reconstruction as a function of the rotation fraction $f=\Omega/\Omega_K$, for the sampled set of central densities $\rho_c=10^6,10^8,10^{10},10^{11}\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$. Here the two-dimensional reference radius is the volume-equivalent radius $R_{\mathrm{vol},2D}^{\mathrm{approx}}$. The discrepancy remains at the percent level over the tested range and grows monotonically with $f$.}
\label{fig:fig9}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Maximum absolute discrepancies between the 1D reduced model and the corrected quasi-two-dimensional reconstruction over the sampled central-density set, shown for each tested rotation fraction $f=\Omega/\Omega_K$.}
\label{tab:quasi2D_summary}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c|}
\hline\hline
$f$ & $\max |\delta M|$ & $\max |\delta R|$ \\
\hline
0.1 & $8.73\times 10^{-4}$ & $8.88\times 10^{-4}$ \\
0.2 & $6.78\times 10^{-4}$ & $5.29\times 10^{-3}$ \\
0.3 & $3.03\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.12\times 10^{-2}$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

To separate the intrinsic rotational effect from the model--reconstruction discrepancy, we also evaluated the fractional shifts of the rotating one-dimensional models relative to the corresponding non-rotating baseline configurations,
\begin{equation}
\Delta_M^{(0)} \equiv \frac{M(f)-M(0)}{M(0)},
\qquad
\Delta_R^{(0)} \equiv \frac{R(f)-R(0)}{R(0)}.
\end{equation}
The resulting maxima over the sampled central-density set are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:baseline_shift_summary}. These values show that, over the tested range, rotation modifies the radius more strongly than the mass. In particular, the radius shift reaches approximately $2.4\%$ by $f=0.3$, whereas the corresponding mass shift remains below $1\%$. This indicates that, within the present slow-to-moderate rotation regime, the leading rotational effect in the one-dimensional sequences is associated with the geometric response of the configuration rather than with a large change in the global mass budget.
   
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Maximum absolute fractional shifts of the rotating one-dimensional models relative to the corresponding non-rotating baseline configurations, shown for each tested rotation fraction $f=\Omega/\Omega_K$.}
\label{tab:baseline_shift_summary}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
\hline \hline
$f$ & $\max |\Delta_M^{(0)}|$ & $\max |\Delta_R^{(0)}|$ \\
\hline
0.1 & $8.31\times 10^{-4}$ & $2.47\times 10^{-3}$ \\
0.2 & $3.35\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.02\times 10^{-2}$ \\
0.3 & $7.61\times 10^{-3}$ & $2.39\times 10^{-2}$ \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Results: limiting configurations and rotation dependence}
\label{sec:stability_results}

This section summarizes how the one-dimensional rotation--anisotropy mapping modifies the global sequences and the
corresponding saturation (limiting) readout at the high-density end of the scan. The families $M(\rho_c)$ and $R(\rho_c)$
for fixed rotation proxy $f$ are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:sprint_fig1}--\ref{fig:sprint_fig3}, and the consolidated
readout (including admissibility diagnostics) is given in Table~\ref{tab:summary}.

\subsection{Global trends in $M(\rho_c)$ and $R(\rho_c)$}
\label{subsec:results_global_trends}

As $f$ increases, the mass--central-density sequence shifts upward relative to the non-rotating benchmark
(Fig.~\ref{fig:sprint_fig1}), and the corresponding radii also increase across the scanned domain
(Fig.~\ref{fig:sprint_fig2}). In the present reduced model, this behavior is the expected signature of the additional
effective support introduced by the mapped centrifugal contribution. In the mass--radius plane, the fixed-$f$ sequences
populate a locus above the baseline curve (Fig.~\ref{fig:sprint_fig3}), providing a compact geometric view of the same
trend.

\subsection{Readout and applicability}
\label{subsec:results_readout_applicability}

Table~\ref{tab:summary} reports the saturation readout extracted at the high-density edge of the scan together with
global admissibility diagnostics and an interior smallness measure of the mapped term. Over the explored range
$f\le 0.35$, the relative increase of the limiting mass remains modest (percent level), while all retained families
remain safely sub-Keplerian according to $\max(\Omega/\Omega_K)<1$ (equivalently $\max(\epsilon)<1$) \citep{Tassoul1978}. The bulk-interior
diagnostic $\mathcal{A}_{10^{-2}}$ stays below unity and grows monotonically with $f$, indicating that the effective
anisotropy term remains subdominant to the radial pressure throughout the star's interior away from the low-pressure
surface layer.

In interpreting these results, it is important that in the Newtonian Chandrasekhar setting the mass approaches an
asymptotic limiting value at large $\rho_c$ \citep{Chandrasekhar1931,Chandrasekhar1939,ShapiroTeukolsky1983}, so finite scans may exhibit a saturation plateau rather than a sharply
localized interior turning point. Accordingly, the tabulated limiting points should be viewed as saturation estimates
within the explored domain. Within this operational notion, the robust outcome is the systematic dependence of the
readout $(M_{\rm lim},R_{\rm lim})$ on $f$ under controlled slow-rotation diagnostics.

%==============================================%
\subsection{Multi-criterion applicability envelope for the rotation proxy}
\label{subsec:applicability_envelope}

For parameter sweeps we use the proxy
\begin{equation}
f \equiv \frac{\Omega}{\Omega_{K,0}(\rho_c)},\qquad 
\Omega_{K,0}(\rho_c)\equiv \sqrt{\frac{G M_0(\rho_c)}{R_0(\rho_c)^3}},
\label{eq:f_def}
\end{equation}
defined with respect to the \emph{non-rotating} baseline model at the same $\rho_c$. Because this reference differs
from the rotating configuration, $f$ is not bounded \emph{a priori}. The physically admissible and model-valid range
must therefore be established by explicit constraints evaluated on the rotating solutions.

\paragraph{Hard physical bound (mass shedding).}
For each fixed-$f$ family we compute the Kepler frequency from the rotating $(M,R)$,
$\Omega_K(M,R)=\sqrt{GM/R^3}$, and define the family-level diagnostic
\begin{equation}
K_1(f)\equiv \max_{\rho_c}\left(\frac{\Omega}{\Omega_K(M,R)}\right),
\label{eq:K1_def}
\end{equation}
where the maximum is taken along the scanned $\rho_c$ grid. The condition $K_1(f)<1$ enforces sub-Keplerian rotation
(equivalently $\max(\epsilon)<1$ with $\epsilon=\Omega^2R^3/(GM)$) \citep{Tassoul1978}.

\paragraph{Slow-rotation validity at the level of force balance.}
To test whether the mapped centrifugal contribution remains perturbative in the radial balance, we compare the rotation
term $(2/3)\rho\,\Omega^2 r$ to the Newtonian gravitational term $Gm\rho/r^2$ and introduce the dimensionless ratio
\begin{equation}
\chi(r)\equiv \frac{\frac{2}{3}\rho\,\Omega^2 r}{Gm\rho/r^2}
=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\Omega^2 r^3}{Gm(r)}.
\label{eq:chi_r_def}
\end{equation}
Since near the surface $p_r\to 0$ the outermost layers can be sensitive to the stopping criterion, we summarize the
bulk interior via
\begin{equation}
\chi_{10^{-2}} \equiv \max_{p_r/p_c\ge 10^{-2}}\chi(r),
\label{eq:chi_eta_def}
\end{equation}
and define the normalized criterion
\begin{equation}
K_2(f)\equiv \frac{\chi_{10^{-2}}}{\chi_\star}, \qquad \chi_\star=0.2,
\label{eq:K2_def}
\end{equation}
which corresponds to requiring that the rotational contribution remains at the $\lesssim 20\%$ level of the
gravitational term in the bulk interior.

\paragraph{Slow-rotation validity at the level of effective anisotropy.}
A complementary bulk measure monitors the magnitude of the mapped anisotropy term relative to the radial pressure,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_{10^{-2}}\equiv \max_{p_r/p_c\ge 10^{-2}}\left(\frac{\Delta_{\rm rot}}{p_r}\right),
\qquad \Delta_{\rm rot}(r)=\frac{1}{3}\rho(r)\Omega^2r^2,
\label{eq:Aeta_def_env}
\end{equation}
and we introduce
\begin{equation}
K_3(f)\equiv \frac{\mathcal{A}_{10^{-2}}}{A_\star},\qquad A_\star=0.3.
\label{eq:K3_def}
\end{equation}
The choice $A_\star=0.3$ enforces that the effective anisotropy remains subdominant to the bulk radial pressure, which
is a conservative perturbative requirement for interpreting the mapping as a slow-rotation reduced model.

\paragraph{Recommended slow-rotation domain.}
To place the three constraints on a common scale, we consider $K_1(f)$, $K_2(f)$, and $K_3(f)$ together and adopt
\begin{equation}
K_i(f) < 1\qquad (i=1,2,3)
\label{eq:Ki_threshold}
\end{equation}
as the admissibility condition for each measure. The recommended slow-rotation bound is then defined as the
intersection of the three admissible ranges,
\begin{equation}
f \le f_{\rm rec}\equiv \min\!\left(f_{\max}^{(1)},\,f_{\max}^{(2)},\,f_{\max}^{(3)}\right),
\qquad K_i\!\left(f_{\max}^{(i)}\right)=1,
\label{eq:frec_def}
\end{equation}
where each $f_{\max}^{(i)}$ can be obtained by interpolation between adjacent sampled values of $f$ (here with
$\Delta f=0.015$). Figure~\ref{fig:criteria_envelope} visualizes this multi-criterion envelope and indicates
$f_{\rm rec}$ by the earliest threshold crossing. In the parameter range explored here, the anisotropy smallness
criterion is the most restrictive, while the sub-Keplerian bound remains comfortably satisfied.

\paragraph{Why this matters.}
This envelope provides a model-internal, quantitative criterion for when rotation can be treated as a controlled
perturbation in one-dimensional surveys. Rather than imposing an arbitrary upper bound on $f$, we define an admissible
domain in terms of physically interpretable diagnostics (mass shedding, bulk force-balance smallness, and bulk
anisotropy smallness), which clarifies the regime in which the present reduced model can serve as a reproducible Newtonian
benchmark for future multidimensional or Hartle--Thorne comparisons \citep{Hartle1967,HartleThorne1968}.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig.8
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plots2/limit_a.eps}
\caption{Normalized applicability criteria for the rotation proxy $f$.
We show $K_1=\max(\Omega/\Omega_K)$ (sub-Keplerian proximity), $K_2=\chi_{10^{-2}}/\chi_\star$ with
$\chi(r)=(2/3)\Omega^2 r^3/[Gm(r)]$ and $\chi_\star=0.2$ (bulk force-balance smallness), and
$K_3=\mathcal{A}_{10^{-2}}/A_\star$ with $\mathcal{A}_{10^{-2}}=\max_{p_r/p_c\ge10^{-2}}(\Delta_{\rm rot}/p_r)$ and
$A_\star=0.3$ (bulk anisotropy smallness). The horizontal dashed line marks the common threshold $K_i=1$. The vertical
dashed line indicates the recommended slow-rotation bound $f_{\rm rec}$ defined by the earliest threshold crossing
among the three criteria.}
\label{fig:criteria_envelope}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
\label{sec:disc_conc}

We presented a one-dimensional Newtonian reduced model for uniformly rotating, cold white dwarfs in which the
angle-averaged centrifugal support is recast into an effective pressure anisotropy,
$\Delta_{\rm rot}(r)=\tfrac{1}{3}\rho(r)\Omega^2 r^2$. The purpose of the construction is practical: it provides a
transparent and inexpensive tool for survey-style scans over wide central-density grids while keeping the rotational
input explicit through the spin frequency $\Omega$.

Within the explored parameter range, the reduced model produces the expected trend-level response to increasing rotation:
interior profiles (Figs.~1--4) and the global families $M(\rho_c)$ and $R(\rho_c)$ shift toward larger radii and modestly
larger masses relative to the non-rotating benchmark (Figs.~\ref{fig:sprint_fig1}--\ref{fig:sprint_fig3}). The
consolidated high-density readout reported in Table~\ref{tab:summary} shows percent-level increases in the limiting mass
and a systematic increase in the limiting radius as the rotation proxy $f$ is raised, while all retained families
remain sub-Keplerian according to diagnostics evaluated on the rotating configurations \citep{Tassoul1978}.

A key interpretive point concerns the operational meaning of the ``limiting'' values in Table~\ref{tab:summary}. In the
Newtonian Chandrasekhar model, the mass approaches an asymptotic limiting value at large $\rho_c$
\citep{Chandrasekhar1931,Chandrasekhar1939,ShapiroTeukolsky1983}, so a finite scan can exhibit a saturation plateau rather
than a sharply localized interior turning point. In the present grids the discrete maximum occurs at the upper edge of
the sampled domain ($\log_{10}\rho_c=11$ for all families). Accordingly, $(M_{\rm lim},R_{\rm lim})$ should be read as
saturation estimates within the explored range rather than as a definitive stability boundary for fully rotating
equilibria.

The reduced model intentionally trades geometric fidelity for speed and interpretability. Because the mapping relies on the
angular average $\langle\sin^2\theta\rangle=2/3$, it cannot represent the genuine axisymmetric deformation of rotating
configurations (equatorial bulge and polar flattening). Its outputs are therefore best interpreted as controlled
one-dimensional trends rather than precise predictions for individual fast rotators. In addition, we restricted ourselves to
uniform rotation and Newtonian self-gravity; differential rotation, multidimensional equilibrium effects, and
relativistic corrections lie outside the present setup. The regime of use is nevertheless explicit and testable: we
enforce the sub-Keplerian (mass-shedding) constraint on the rotating solutions \citep{Tassoul1978}, and we monitor the
bulk-interior strength of the mapped term via $\mathcal{A}_{10^{-2}}$, which is designed to avoid contamination from the
low-pressure surface layer.

Two directions are particularly natural for follow-up. First, the trend-level accuracy of the mapping can be calibrated
against dedicated axisymmetric Newtonian equilibria computed with established self-consistent-field methods for the same
microphysics and uniform rotation \citep{Hachisu1986ApJS}. Second, the Newtonian reduced model can be cross-checked against
standard slow-rotation formalisms in the regime where relativistic corrections are included and the rotation is treated
perturbatively \citep{Hartle1967,HartleThorne1968}. Such benchmarks would quantify the errors in $(M,R)$ and help refine
a recommended domain of applicability in $(\rho_c,f)$ beyond the internal criteria already provided here.

In summary, the present work delivers a minimal and reproducible Newtonian benchmark for rotation-induced trends in cold
white dwarfs. Its main advantage is that the rotational term is explicit, regular at the center, and checked by internal
applicability diagnostics. It enables rapid parameter sweeps and can serve as a simple reference for future comparisons
with multidimensional equilibria, slow-rotation calculations, and general-relativistic rotating white-dwarf models.

\section*{Acknowledgments}

The work of HQ was supported by UNAM-DGAPA-PAPIIT, grant No. 108225, and Conahcyt, grant No. CBF-2025-I-243.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
\bibliography{References}

\end{document}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}

The central construction of this work is a one-dimensional surrogate in which the angle-averaged centrifugal support of
uniform rotation is recast into an effective pressure anisotropy,
$\Delta_{\rm rot}(r)=\tfrac{1}{3}\rho(r)\Omega^2 r^2$. Within a Newtonian setting, this mapping provides a transparent
and inexpensive way to survey how rotation modifies interior profiles (Figs.~1--4) and global sequences
(Figs.~\ref{fig:sprint_fig1}--\ref{fig:sprint_fig3}) across broad central-density grids. The trends obtained from the
scan are consistent with the additional effective support encoded by the mapping: at fixed microphysics, increasing the
rotation proxy $f$ shifts the sequences toward larger radii and slightly larger saturation masses within the explored
parameter range (Table~\ref{tab:summary}), while remaining sub-Keplerian by the diagnostics evaluated on the rotating
solutions.

A key interpretive point is the operational meaning of the ``limiting'' values reported in Table~\ref{tab:summary}. In
the Newtonian Chandrasekhar model the mass approaches an asymptotic limiting value at large $\rho_c$, so finite grids
may display a saturation plateau rather than a sharply localized interior turning point. In our scans the discrete
maximum occurs at the upper edge of the sampled domain ($\log_{10}\rho_c=11$ for all families); the corresponding
$(M_{\rm lim},R_{\rm lim})$ should therefore be read as saturation estimates within the explored range, not as a
definitive stability boundary for fully rotating equilibria. Within this controlled scope, the robust result is the
systematic dependence of the extracted readout on $f$ under explicit slow-rotation admissibility checks.

The present surrogate intentionally trades geometric fidelity for speed and interpretability. The mapping relies on the
angular average $\langle\sin^2\theta\rangle=2/3$ and therefore cannot represent the genuine axisymmetric deformation of
rapidly rotating configurations (equatorial bulge and polar flattening), so its outputs are best interpreted as
trend-level one-dimensional estimates rather than precise predictions for individual fast rotators. We also restrict to
uniform rotation and Newtonian self-gravity; differential rotation, multidimensional equilibrium effects, and
relativistic corrections lie outside the present setup. Finally, the regime of use is explicitly controlled: the
sub-Keplerian constraints are enforced on the rotating configurations, and the bulk-interior strength of the mapped term
is monitored through the interior smallness measure $\mathcal{A}_{10^{-2}}$, which avoids contamination from the
low-pressure surface layer.

A natural next step is a focused benchmark against established slow-rotation formalisms and/or dedicated axisymmetric
Newtonian equilibria for the same microphysics, using matched rotation diagnostics. Such a comparison would calibrate
the quantitative accuracy of the mapping and further delineate its practical domain of applicability in $(\rho_c,f)$
space.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}

We developed a one-dimensional Newtonian surrogate for uniformly rotating cold white dwarfs in which the
angle-averaged centrifugal contribution is encoded as an effective pressure anisotropy,
$\Delta_{\rm rot}(r)=\tfrac{1}{3}\rho(r)\Omega^2 r^2$. Using the Chandrasekhar degenerate-electron equation of state, we
computed interior profiles and global sequences over wide central-density grids and extracted a consolidated saturation
readout for fixed rotation fractions. Across the scanned domain, increasing $f$ produces systematic (trend-level)
increases in the saturation radius and a modest increase in the saturation mass, while the retained families remain
sub-Keplerian according to diagnostics evaluated on the rotating configurations. The interior smallness measure
$\mathcal{A}_{10^{-2}}$ remains below unity for all explored families and increases monotonically with $f$, indicating
that the mapped term stays subdominant to the radial pressure throughout the bulk interior in the scanned slow-rotation
regime. The resulting sequences and diagnostics provide a compact Newtonian benchmark for future comparisons with
multidimensional rotating equilibria and slow-rotation calculations.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
\bibliography{References}

\end{document}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Two-dimensional benchmark: axisymmetric Newtonian equilibria}
\label{subsec:benchmark_2D}

Our one-dimensional rotation--anisotropy mapping is designed for fast surveys, but it necessarily discards the
axisymmetric deformation of uniformly rotating configurations. To quantify the accuracy of the surrogate and to
calibrate its applicability range, we perform a dedicated two-dimensional benchmark using axisymmetric Newtonian
equilibria for the same microphysics (cold Chandrasekhar equation of state) and the same uniform-rotation assumption.

\subsubsection{2D equilibrium formulation}
\label{subsubsec:2D_formulation}
In Newtonian gravity, an axisymmetric, stationary, uniformly rotating barotrope satisfies
\begin{equation}
H(\rho) + \Phi - \frac{1}{2}\Omega^2 \varpi^2 = C,
\label{eq:2D_first_integral}
\end{equation}
where $\varpi$ is the cylindrical radius, $\Phi$ is the gravitational potential, and
\begin{equation}
H(\rho)\equiv \int_{0}^{\rho}\frac{dp}{\rho'}
\label{eq:enthalpy_def}
\end{equation}
is the specific enthalpy (for our barotropic Chandrasekhar EoS, $p=p(\rho)$). The potential is determined by Poisson's
equation,
\begin{equation}
\nabla^2\Phi = 4\pi G\rho.
\label{eq:poisson}
\end{equation}
Equations \eqref{eq:2D_first_integral}--\eqref{eq:poisson} define a closed system for $\rho(\varpi,z)$ and $\Phi(\varpi,z)$
once a rotation rate $\Omega$ and a central density $\rho_c$ are specified, together with the free constant $C$ fixed by
a surface condition (e.g. $H=0$ on the stellar boundary).

\subsubsection{Numerical method and convergence}
\label{subsubsec:2D_numerics}
We solve the axisymmetric equilibrium problem by a self-consistent field (SCF) iteration on a cylindrical grid
$(\varpi,z)$: starting from an initial density distribution with prescribed $\rho_c$ and a trial surface, we compute
$\Phi$ from \eqref{eq:poisson}, update the enthalpy field from \eqref{eq:2D_first_integral}, and reconstruct the density
via the EoS inversion $\rho=\rho(H)$ until convergence. We monitor convergence through (i) the maximum fractional change
of $(M,R_{\rm eq},R_{\rm p})$ between successive iterations and (ii) the residual of \eqref{eq:2D_first_integral} in the
interior. We further assess robustness by repeating representative models at increased grid resolution and confirming
that the benchmark observables are stable within the quoted numerical precision.

\subsubsection{Benchmark observables and comparison protocol}
\label{subsubsec:2D_outputs}
Two-dimensional equilibria provide distinct geometric radii: the equatorial radius $R_{\rm eq}$ and the polar radius
$R_{\rm p}$. For comparisons to the one-dimensional surrogate, we additionally define a volume-equivalent radius
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm vol}\equiv \left(\frac{3V}{4\pi}\right)^{1/3},
\label{eq:Rvol_def}
\end{equation}
where $V$ is the star's volume in the 2D equilibrium. We quantify rotational deformation through the oblateness
$\mathcal{O}\equiv R_{\rm eq}/R_{\rm p}$ and report the mass-shedding proximity through $\Omega/\Omega_K$ evaluated on the
2D configuration, with $\Omega_K\equiv \sqrt{GM/R_{\rm eq}^3}$ as a conservative estimate.

For a set of representative central densities and rotation rates in the slow-rotation regime, we compare the surrogate
outputs $(M_{\rm 1D},R_{\rm 1D})$ to the 2D equilibrium outputs $(M_{\rm 2D},R_{\rm vol,2D})$ via the relative deviations
\begin{equation}
\delta_M \equiv \frac{M_{\rm 1D}-M_{\rm 2D}}{M_{\rm 2D}},\qquad
\delta_R \equiv \frac{R_{\rm 1D}-R_{\rm vol,2D}}{R_{\rm vol,2D}}.
\label{eq:deltaMR_def}
\end{equation}
These diagnostics provide an explicit calibration of the trend-level accuracy of the surrogate as a function of
rotation strength. We use the same rotation diagnostics as in the one-dimensional analysis to interpret the benchmark
within a controlled applicability envelope.

\subsubsection{Validation grid}
\label{subsubsec:2D_grid}
To keep the benchmark computationally focused while spanning the relevant regimes, we evaluate a small but
representative set of models across logarithmically spaced central densities (covering the non-relativistic to
relativistic-degenerate transition) and multiple slow-rotation rates (e.g. $\Omega/\Omega_K\lesssim 0.3$). The resulting
$\delta_M$, $\delta_R$, and $\mathcal{O}$ trends are reported alongside the one-dimensional applicability diagnostics,
allowing the recommended slow-rotation bound inferred from the surrogate to be cross-checked against the onset of
significant 2D deformation.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Discussion }
\label{sec:discussion}

\subsection{What the present model captures}
\label{subsec:disc_captures}

The central technical step of this work is the one-dimensional mapping that recasts the
angle-averaged centrifugal support of uniform rotation into an effective anisotropy term,
$\Delta_{\rm rot}(r)=\tfrac{1}{3}\rho(r)\Omega^2 r^2$.
Within the Newtonian framework, this construction provides a controlled and computationally
cheap surrogate for surveying how rotation modifies both interior stratification (Figs.~1--4)
and global sequences (Figs.~\ref{fig:sprint_fig1}--\ref{fig:sprint_fig3}) across wide parameter grids.
The resulting trends are physically consistent: increasing $f$ enhances the net support against
gravity, yielding systematically larger limiting masses and radii within the explored domain
(Table~\ref{tab:summary}), while remaining sub-Keplerian according to $\max(\Omega/\Omega_K)<1$ and
$\max(\epsilon)<1$.

\subsection{Interpretation of the ``limiting'' points}
\label{subsec:disc_limiting}

A key point for interpreting Table~\ref{tab:summary} is that, in the Newtonian Chandrasekhar model,
the mass approaches an asymptotic limiting value at large central density rather than exhibiting
a sharply localized interior turning point over finite parameter ranges. Consequently, when the
discrete maximum of $M(\rho_c;f)$ occurs at the upper end of the scanned grid (here at
$\log_{10}\rho_c=11$ for all families), it should be understood as a saturation estimate within the
explored domain, not as a definitive dynamical stability boundary of a fully rotating equilibrium.
Within this scope, the robust result is the monotonic dependence of the limiting readout
$(M_{\rm lim},R_{\rm lim})$ on the rotation proxy $f$ under controlled slow-rotation diagnostics.

\subsection{Modeling limitations}
\label{subsec:disc_limitations}

The present approach intentionally trades geometric fidelity for speed and interpretability.
Its main limitations are:

\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Angle averaging and loss of 2D structure.}
The mapping is based on the angular average $\langle\sin^2\theta\rangle=2/3$ and does not resolve true axisymmetric deformation
(equatorial bulge, polar flattening). The model is designed to capture trend-level changes in global observables rather than precise predictions
for individual rapidly rotating configurations.

\item \textbf{Uniform rotation and reduced surrogate.}
We assume uniform rotation and encode its influence through $\Delta_{\rm rot}$ as a leading-order effective term in a one-dimensional balance equation.
Differential rotation and multi-dimensional equilibrium effects lie outside the present scope.

\item \textbf{Newtonian gravity.}
Self-gravity is treated Newtonianly; relativistic corrections are not included. The results should therefore be interpreted within a Newtonian benchmark
context.

\item \textbf{Controlled applicability.}
The intended regime of applicability is slow rotation. We report $\max(\Omega/\Omega_K)$ and $\max(\epsilon)$ as global diagnostics and use the interior
measure $\mathcal{A}_{10^{-2}}\equiv \max_{p_r/p_c\ge 10^{-2}}(\Delta_{\rm rot}/p_r)$ to quantify the local strength of the surrogate term in the bulk.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Outlook}
\label{subsec:disc_outlook}

A natural next step is to benchmark the present one-dimensional mapping against established slow-rotation formalisms and/or two-dimensional equilibrium
calculations for rotating white dwarfs, in order to calibrate its quantitative accuracy and delineate its domain of applicability in $(\rho_c,f)$ space.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}

We presented a one-dimensional Newtonian framework that incorporates uniform rotation through an effective
pressure-anisotropy mapping. Using the Chandrasekhar degenerate-electron equation of state, we computed interior
profiles and global sequences across wide central-density grids and extracted a consolidated limiting (high-density
saturation) readout for fixed rotation fractions. Within the explored parameter range, rotation increases the limiting
mass and radius monotonically, while all sequences remain safely sub-Keplerian according to $\Omega/\Omega_K$ and
$\epsilon$ diagnostics. The resulting trends provide a compact benchmark for future comparisons with multidimensional
rotating equilibria and for controlled extensions beyond the Newtonian approximation.

The interior diagnostic $\mathcal{A}_{10^{-2}}$ (Table~\ref{tab:summary}) remains below unity across the explored families and increases monotonically
with $f$, indicating that the effective anisotropy term stays subdominant to the radial pressure throughout the bulk of the star in the scanned slow-rotation regime.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
\bibliography{References}

\end{document}


We present a fast one-dimensional Newtonian surrogate for surveying uniform-rotation effects in cold white dwarfs by encoding the angle-averaged centrifugal support as an effective pressure anisotropy. Starting from the stationary Euler equation in a uniformly rotating frame and applying the angular average $\langle\sin^2\theta\rangle=2/3$ to the centrifugal term, we obtain the rotation-induced anisotropy
$\Delta_{\rm rot}(r)=\frac{1}{3}\rho(r)\Omega^2 r^2$,
which is regular at the origin and can be incorporated into the anisotropic hydrostatic balance without resorting to a two-dimensional equilibrium solver. Using the Chandrasekhar degenerate-electron equation of state, we compute interior profiles and global sequences over central densities
$\rho_c\in[10^6,10^{11}]~{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}$
for fixed rotation proxies
$f\equiv \Omega/\Omega_{K,0}(\rho_c)\le 0.35$.
Across the explored families, the extracted high-density saturation readout shows monotonic increases of the limiting mass and radius with $f$, with a percent-level enhancement of the limiting mass at $f=0.35$ relative to the non-rotating benchmark. We quantify applicability using sub-Keplerian diagnostics evaluated on the rotating configurations, $\max(\Omega/\Omega_K)$ and $\max(\epsilon)$, together with a bulk-interior smallness measure
$A_{10^{-2}}\equiv \max_{p_r/p_c\ge 10^{-2}}(\Delta_{\rm rot}/p_r)$.
Within the scanned domain these diagnostics remain below unity. The surrogate provides a reproducible Newtonian benchmark and a compact trend-level reference for future calibration against slow-rotation formalisms and multidimensional rotating equilibria.