Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Theoretical modeling of approximate universality of tidally deformed neutron stars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that the universal Love relations of neutron stars follow analytically from a modified Tolman VII interior model, with equation-of-state dependence cancelling in combinations of tidal Love numbers.

desk verdict First analytic derivation of the universal Love relations is solid and worth publishing; the low-compressibility origin claim in the abstract outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05429 v2 pith:6UP4MKQ2 submitted 2025-05-08 gr-qc astro-ph.HEnucl-exnucl-th

Takuya Katagiri , Gowtham Rishi Mukkamala , Kent Yagi This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEnucl-exnucl-th
keywords neutronstarstidaldeformabilityuniversalLoverelationsI-LoverelationTolmanVIIsolutionequationofstateapproximateuniversalitylowcompressibility
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

This paper tries to show that the approximate universal Love relations of neutron stars—empirical power-law links between tidal deformability parameters that barely depend on the unknown nuclear equation of state—are not an accident but follow from a simple semi-analytic interior model. Using the modified Tolman VII density profile $\rho = \rho_c[1-\alpha \xi^2+(\alpha-1)\xi^4]$, the authors solve static even- and odd-parity tidal perturbations in a post-Minkowskian expansion, eliminate the compactness, and obtain power-law relations such as $\bar{\sigma}_2\propto \bar{\lambda}_2^{4/5}$ and $\bar{\lambda}_3\propto \bar{\lambda}_2^{7/5}$ with explicit coefficients that match earlier empirical fits. The key claim is that the equation-of-state dependence in these relations is suppressed because the leading coefficient involves a ratio of tidal Love numbers, such as $j_2/(k_2)^{4/5}$, whose numerator and denominator grow together as the equation of state becomes stiffer, so their relative variations nearly cancel. The same cancellation is shown to underpin the I-Love relation, leading the authors to conclude that the approximate universality of perturbed neutron stars is rooted in their low compressibility rather than in any fine-tuning of the equation of state.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified Tolman VII solution, a relativistic stellar interior model whose energy density profile is $\rho=\rho_c[1-\alpha \xi^2+(\alpha-1)\xi^4]$, with one parameter $\alpha$ that interpolates between stiff equations of state ($\alpha\to 0$; locally incompressible core) and softer ones ($\alpha=1.4$); $\alpha=1$ reduces to the classic Tolman VII solution. The argument is carried by solving the static even- and odd-parity tidal perturbation equations on this background using an expansion in compactness $C$, re-summing the resulting polynomials with Padé approximants to get $\bar{\lambda}_\ell(C)$ and $\bar{\sigma}_\ell(C)$, and then eliminating $C$ between two such relations. The load-bearing identity is the structure of the leading coefficient, e.g. $\bar{\sigma}_2 \propto [j_2^{(1\mathrm{PM})}/(k_2^{(N)})^{4/5}]\bar{\lambda}_2^{4/5}$, in which the $\alpha$-dependent parts of the numerator and denominator nearly cancel because their relative change rates are close in size and both move in the same direction as the stiffness changes.

What would settle it

Compute the combination $j_2/(k_2)^{4/5}$ for a library of modern equations of state, including hybrid stars with deconfined quark cores, and see whether the coefficient of $\bar{\lambda}_2^{4/5}$ stays within the few-percent spread the $\alpha$-scan predicts; a substantially larger spread would show that the single-parameter profile is not capturing the relevant equation-of-state variation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the universal Love relations can be derived rather than merely fitted. On the modified Tolman VII background with $\alpha=1$ (the original Tolman VII solution), the post-Minkowskian expressions for the tidal deformabilities are polynomials in the compactness; inverting $\bar{\lambda}_2(C)$ and substituting into $\bar{\sigma}_2(C)$ and $\bar{\lambda}_3(C)$ yields closed-form power laws (1) and (2). The paper then isolates the mechanism of universality: at leading post-Minkowskian order the power-law coefficient is a ratio of Love numbers, for example $j_2^{(1\mathrm{PM})}/(k_2^{(N)})^{4/5}$ for the $\bar{\lambda}_2$–$\bar{\sigma}_2$ relation, and the relative rates at which $k_2^{(N)}$, $j_2^{(1\mathrm{PM})}$, and the moment of inertia vary with the stiffness parameter $\alpha$ are nearly proportional to the power-law exponent. Because the numerator and denominator of the ratio vary in the same direction, the combination is almost $\alpha$-independent: the coefficient varies by about 4% for $\bar{\lambda}_2$–$\bar{\sigma}_2$, 8% for $\bar{\lambda}_2$–$\bar{\lambda}_3$, and 2% for the I-Love relation across the range $0\le\alpha\le 1.4$. The remaining $\alpha$-dependence decreases as $\alpha\to 0$, which corresponds to a locally incompressible, maximally stiff fluid, so the paper concludes that low compressibility is what makes the relations approximately universal.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the modified Tolman VII density profile, with the single parameter $\alpha$ ranging from 0 to 1.4, faithfully represents how realistic neutron-star equations of state vary, in the particular combinations that enter the Love relations; the fully analytic model is admittedly approximate near the stellar surface, and if a realistic interior departs from this quartic profile in a way that $\alpha$ cannot mimic, the derived cancellation may not carry over to actual stars.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the higher-order tidal parameters in gravitational-wave templates can be expressed analytically in terms of a single tidal parameter, $\bar{\lambda}_2$, with errors at the few-percent level, so breaking degeneracies in parameter estimation becomes less dependent on nuclear-physics uncertainties.
  • The derived power-law relations give explicit theoretical expressions for $\bar{\sigma}_2$, $\bar{\lambda}_3$, and the normalized moment of inertia $\bar{I}$ in terms of $\bar{\lambda}_2$, extending the purely empirical fits in earlier work with an underlying model-based justification.
  • Because the same suppression mechanism governs the I-Love relation, independent measurements of the moment of inertia (e.g., from pulsar timing) and of the tidal deformability (from gravitational waves) can be cross-checked against a single equation-of-state-insensitive curve.
  • The mechanism predicts that the degree of universality is not fixed but improves as the stellar fluid becomes stiffer; stars with a high local adiabatic index throughout the interior should follow the universal relations more tightly.
  • If the relations are violated by more than the derived few-percent spread, that would signal either a breakdown of the quasi-universal description or the presence of physics beyond the perfect-fluid, isentropic static-tide assumptions, such as a different fluid state or a modified theory of gravity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mechanism suggests a testable hierarchy: any linear response of a neutron star whose leading coefficient has the form $X/(k_2)^{p}$ with $p$ close to the ratio of the response's stiffness-dependence to that of $k_2$ will also be quasi-universal; this could be checked for rotational tidal Love numbers or for the spin-induced quadrupole moment, which the paper leaves for future work.
  • If low compressibility is the origin, then stars with significant first-order phase transitions—where the density profile develops a nearly flat or discontinuous region not captured by the quartic ansatz—should show larger scatter in the Love relations; locating such a star would directly distinguish the low-compressibility explanation from alternatives like self-similar isodensity contours.
  • The paper's picture points to a possible universality horizon: as the adiabatic index decreases below a threshold, the power-law coefficients should start drifting with the equation of state; quantifying that threshold with a family of polytropes could put a precise boundary on where the Love relations cease to be useful.
  • One could extend the derivation to dynamical tides or to the f-mode frequency–tidal-deformability relation by replacing the static perturbation equations with the frequency-dependent ones, testing whether the same cancellation persists at finite frequency.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a semi-analytic framework based on a modified Tolman VII solution (energy-density profile with a single parameter α) and post-Minkowskian perturbation theory to derive universal relations among tidal deformabilities: the even-odd relation λ̄2-σ̄2 (Eq. 1), the multipole relation λ̄2-λ̄3 (Eq. 2), and the I-Love relation (Eq. C1). Using series inversion and Padé resummation, it obtains power-law coefficients from the α=1 Tolman VII background and demonstrates weak α-dependence of the relations. It proposes that EoS dependence is suppressed because the relative α-change rates of the magnetic-type and electric-type TLNs nearly match the power-law exponents (e.g., C_j^(1)/C_k^(1) ≈ 0.68 versus 4/5 in Eq. 27), and attributes the universality to low compressibility of neutron-star matter.

Significance. Assuming the results hold, the paper provides an analytic derivation of the multipole Love relations and an I-Love-like power law from a unified interior model, with explicit coefficients and a proposed suppression mechanism. The contribution is strengthened by the cross-checks in Figs. 12 and 13 between the PM/Padé expressions and direct numerical solutions on the same background, by the public coefficient repository [82], and by the percent-level agreement with realistic-EoS data in Fig. 1. The value is not only the fitting formulas (which reproduce earlier empirical fits) but the attempt to explain why EoS dependence cancels; this explanatory claim currently rests on evidence from a one-parameter family. If the requested realistic-EoS checks confirm the ratio condition, the paper would be a substantial step toward understanding the origin of neutron-star universality.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.B, Eq. (27)] The suppression mechanism is asserted through Eq. (27), where the ratio C_j^(1)/C_k^(1) ≈ 0.68, close to the exponent 4/5, produces near cancellation. This ratio is evaluated only within the one-parameter modified Tolman VII family (Table I), and no realistic-EoS calculation demonstrates that the analogous relative change rates obey the same near-exponent proportionality. Figure 1 shows only the final scatter of the universal relations, which cannot discriminate cancellation of TLN variations from other mechanisms. Please compute C_k^(1), C_j^(1), and the analogous ratios for a continuous realistic-EoS family (e.g., piecewise-polytrope parameter families, or the four EoSs of Fig. 1 over a range of masses) and state whether the near-exponent condition holds; without this check, the causal attribution in the abstract and Section IV.D is not supported for physical stars.
  2. [Section II and Appendix A] The fully analytic model is stated to approximate the semi-analytic solution except for the pressure in the outer layers (Section II), and the power-law relations and the ratios in Table I are derived from this fully analytic model. Because Eq. (27) relies on the first-order α coefficients of k_2^(N) and j_2^(1PM), it is important to quantify how sensitive these coefficients and their ratio are to the outer-layer approximation. I ask the authors to recompute the ratios C_j^(1)/C_k^(1) (and the Table I entries) using the semi-analytic background behind Figs. 12 and 13, or by varying the treatment of the outer layers, and to report the change. If the ratio shifts substantially, the near-exponent coincidence may be an artifact of the fully analytic model.
  3. [Section IV.D] The conclusion that universality arises from low compressibility is inferred from monotonic reinforcement as α→0. However, Section IV.C notes that polytropes with 0 ≤ n ≤ 1, which are much more EoS-sensitive (Eq. 29), also follow the universal Love relations, so the low-compressibility picture does not uniquely explain the data. Please either provide a quantitative criterion that distinguishes the low-compressibility origin from the general cancellation mechanism, or soften the causal attribution accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I.B] The phrase 'non-relatistic' should be corrected to 'non-relativistic'.
  2. [Section IV.C] The word 'regraded' should be 'regarded' in 'they should be regraded as mutually correlated'.
  3. [Section I.B] The phrase 'connect approximately (conservative) tidal deformabilities' is unclear; if 'conservative' refers to the fluid-state assumption, it should be defined at first use.
  4. [Figures 4, 5, 12-14] The parenthetical notes explaining that the bottom panels do not display the error between semi-analytic curves and the theoretical relation are easy to misread; please move these clarifications into the main text or clarify in the captions what the quoted fractional difference measures.
  5. [Eqs. (16) and (19)] The notation C with combined superscripts and subscripts (e.g., C^{σ̄2 λ̄2}_0) is difficult to parse; please define it explicitly at first use or adopt a clearer symbol.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the universal Love relations are derived analytically, not fitted; self-citations supply model ingredients but do not reduce the target claims.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity test. The power-law relations (1) and (2) are obtained by solving the even- and odd-parity perturbation equations on the modified Tolman VII background within the post-Minkowskian expansion, eliminating the compactness C between analytic expressions for λ̄2, σ̄2, and λ̄3 (Section III.B and Appendix B). The coefficients in Eqs. (1) and (2) are computed constants from the α=1 Tolman VII solution, not fit parameters, and the empirical fits of Ref. [42] enter only as benchmarks in Figure 1. The suppression mechanism in Eq. (27) is likewise a computed identity: the ratio C_j^(1)/C_k^(1) ≈ 0.68 is evaluated from the model's analytic TLN expansions, and the cancellation with the exponent 4/5 follows algebraically once that ratio is known; nothing is imposed by construction. The self-citations to Refs. [69] and [72] supply the interior model and the moment-of-inertia expression, but these are explicit analytic inputs with stated assumptions, not unverified uniqueness claims, and the final relations are checked against independent realistic-EoS data (APR, SLy, LS220, Shen) in Figure 1. The paper's own caveats that the fully analytic model is approximate in the outer layers and that the physical origin of the ratio 0.68 remains unclear are honesty notes, not admissions of circularity. The attribution of universality to low compressibility is conditional on the one-parameter α family and is a robustness or external-validity concern, which belongs under correctness risk rather than circularity.

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

Everything the central claim rests on beyond standard GR: the quartic density-profile ansatz (8), the static/isentropic/irrotational perturbation assumptions, and convergence of the PM expansion. No new particles or fields are invented. The free parameter α encodes the equation-of-state family, and the truncation orders are technical convergence choices.

free parameters (2)
  • α (modified Tolman VII density-profile parameter) = Not fitted; spans [0,1.4], fixed at α=1 for the main universal relations
    Controls the energy-density profile in Eq. (8) and the stiffness of the model EoS. It is the knob that represents equation-of-state variation in the model, not a number fit to the universal relations.
  • PM expansion and Padé truncation orders = (j_max,k_max)=(6,15) for even parity, j_max=5 for odd parity, Padé [3/3] for λ̄ℓ, [2/2] for σ̄ℓ
    Chosen by hand to keep the analytic expansion tractable; the paper shows that higher orders give negligible changes in the low-compactness regime where the universal relations are evaluated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption General relativity with a perfect-fluid stress energy tensor describes the equilibrium and tidal response of neutron stars.
    The TOV equations (6) and perturbation equations (B14) and (B33) are derived under this assumption; the paper does not test modified gravity.
  • domain assumption The energy density profile of a neutron star is well approximated by the quartic profile (8) with α in [0,1.4].
    This is the core model ansatz taken from Refs. [68,69]; the derivation of the universal relations uses this profile and the comparison with realistic EoS data is used to validate it.
  • domain assumption Tidal perturbations are static, isentropic, and follow the background barotropic equation of state (γ=γ(ρ)).
    Stated in Appendix B; this sets Δp/p = γ Δn/n and reduces the even-parity problem to Eq. (B14).
  • domain assumption For odd-parity perturbations, the fluid is in an irrotational state, not a strictly static state.
    Footnote 9 and Refs. [84,85]; this determines the sign and magnitude of the magnetic-type tidal deformability σ̄2.
  • standard math The post-Minkowskian expansion in compactness C and subsequent Padé resummation converge in the regime of interest.
    The paper validates this against numerical solutions in Figs. 12 and 13; the universal relations are evaluated in the low-compactness regime where the error is small.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theoretical modeling of approximate universality of tidally deformed neutron stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6UP4MKQ2

@misc{pith2026250505429,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theoretical modeling of approximate universality of tidally deformed neutron stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6UP4MKQ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05429}
}
read the original abstract

Quasi-universal relations are known to exist among various neutron star observables that do not depend sensitively on the underlying nuclear matter equations of state. For example, some of these relations imply that the tidally induced multipole moments are approximately characterized by the electric-type quadrupolar tidal deformability. Such relations can be used to reduce the number of independent tidal parameters in gravitational-waveform modeling, thereby allowing us to infer extreme nuclear matter properties more accurately and test General Relativity in an insensitive manner to uncertainties in nuclear physics. We present a comprehensive theoretical investigation into approximate universality of neutron stars. Our approach employs a semi-analytic relativistic stellar interior model, which extends the Tolman VII solution, thereby enabling a refined exploration of the tidal properties of nonrotating stars within a semi-analytic framework. The derived power-law relations among various tidal deformabilities -- referred to as the universal Love relations -- agree well with expressions in previous work found empirically. We elucidate how the equation-of-state dependence is suppressed in a particular combination of macroscopic physical parameters induced by perturbations and demonstrate that the relation between the moment of inertia and electric-type quadrupolar tidal deformability (I-Love relation) rests on the same underlying mechanism. Our findings indicate that the approximate universality of neutron stars can be attributed to low compressibility, consistent with some of the previous studies on the possible origin of the universality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05429 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Top) Approximately universal λ¯2 − σ¯2 (left) and λ¯2 − λ¯3 (right) relations. The black lines in the left and right panels are the power-law relations (1) and (2), respectively. The colored circles denote a set of (λ¯2, σ¯2) and (λ¯2, λ¯3) that were computed numerically for realistic EoS models (APR [63], SLy [64], LS220 [65], and Shen [66, 67]). Observe that the relations with different EoSs are indistinguishable… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows that smaller α leads to larger Γ. Note that the curves with different α do not intersect. This implies that smaller α corresponds to stiffer EoSs. In the limit α=0 α=0.2 α=0.4 α=0.6 α=0.8 α=1.0 α=1.2 α=1.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 ξ Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The energy density profile in Eq. (8) for various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: presents the λ¯ 2 − σ¯2 relation, demonstrating the insensitivity of the results with respect to variation in α and the excellent agreement of the power-law expres￾sion (1) with the previous empirical finding by Ref. [42].6 Note that the colored circles denote a set of…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to Fig. 4 but for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The relative change rate of C σ¯2λ¯2 0 in Eq. (16) with respect to α, which corresponds to the ratio of the first-order coefficient to the zeroth-order one in the expansion (27). Ob￾serve that the rate is less than 5% in 0 ≤ α ≲ 1.4, indicating approximate universality…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The k2-j2-C relation. For a given EoS, a set of TLNs form a curve as a function of C. The incompressible limit (black curves) corresponds to the outer edge of the region covered by a set of EoS curves in the parameter space that keeps pressure finite. Observe that, for…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The fractional difference in ρ given by Eq. (8) for similar values of α with λ¯2 = 1000, as a function of ξ(= r/R). Observe that, for larger α, the fractional difference increases in a large portion of the interior. We find that the trend in the α dependence of the pow…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The mass function profile of the modified Tol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The pressure profile of the modified Tolman VII [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The lapse function profile of the modified Tol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (Top panel) The electric-type quadrupolar tidal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (Top panel) The magnetic-type quadrupolar tidal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Similar to Fig. 4 but for the I-Love relation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The relative change rate of C I¯λ¯2 0 in Eq. (C8) with respect to α, indicating approximate universality between I¯ and λ¯2. the universal Love relations studied in Section IV. A key observation is that ¯I shares the α dependence with λ¯ 2. We assess the universality …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Shirokov and Shapiro Effects in the Hartle-Thorne Spacetime

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    In the Hartle-Thorne metric, angular momentum J and quadrupole moment Q couple radial and azimuthal oscillations in the Shirokov effect and alter Shapiro time delay, with oblate shapes increasing delay and frame-dragg...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [82]

    Katagiri, T

    T. Katagiri, T. Ikeda, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044067 (2024), arXiv:2310.19705 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    [42].6 Note that the colored circles denote a set of ( ¯λ2, ¯σ2) nu- merically computed for various α on the background de- scribed by the modified Tolman VII solution

    Even–Odd Love relations Figure 4 presents the ¯λ2− ¯σ2 relation, demonstrating the insensitivity of the results with respect to variation in α and the excellent agreement of the power-law expres- sion (1) with the previous empirical finding by Ref. [42].6 Note that the colored circles denote a set of ( ¯λ2, ¯σ2) nu- merically computed for various α on the...

  3. [2]

    diff .[%] Figure 5

    Multipole Love relations Theoretical relation Empirical fit α=0 α=0.2 α=0.4 α=0.6 α=0.8 α=1.0 α=1.2 α=1.4 101 102 103 104 105 106 λ3 101 102 103 10410-2 10-1 100 101 λ2 Frac. diff .[%] Figure 5. Similar to Fig. 4 but for the ¯λ2− ¯λ3 relation. Figure 5 presents the ¯λ2− ¯λ3 relation, showing the weak α dependence and agreement of the power-law re- lation ...

  4. [3]

    9 – 11 withC = 0.1

    Semi-analytic model We provide the modified Tolman VII solution in Figs. 9 – 11 withC = 0.1. The energy density profile is given by Eq. (8) and is depicted in Fig .2. α=0 α=0.2 α=0.4 α=0.6 α=0.8 α=1.0 α=1.2 α=1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 ξ m/R Figure 9. The mass function profile of the modified Tol- man VII solution. α=0 α=0.2 α=0.4 α...

  5. [4]

    Here,ρc is the energy density at the stellar origin, related to the total mass M via ρc = 105M 8πR3 (10− 3α)

    Fully analytic model The explicit form of the fully analytic model of the modified Tolman VII solution is given by [69] eν =C1 cos2ϕ, (A1) e−λ =1− 8πρcR2ξ2 1 3− α 5ξ2 + α− 1 7 ξ4 , with ϕ =C2− 1 2 ln  ξ2− 5 6 + s 5e−λ|α=1 8πρcR2  , C1 = 1− 2M R × ( 1 + 8πρcR2 (10− 3α)2 15− 16πρcR2 3 [105 + 16πρcR2 (3α− 10)]2 ) , (A2) C2 = arctan " −2 (10− 3α)R p 6πρc ...

  6. [5]

    standard

    Even-parity sector a. Stellar perturbations We first briefly introduce the general framework of frequency-dependent linear perturbations of relativistic stars. In the Regge-Wheeler gauge [94], the even-parity sector of metric perturbations with harmonic decompo- sition takes the form, h+ µνdxµdxν = (eνHℓmdt2 + 2Hℓm 1 dtdr (B1) +eλHℓm 2 dr2 +r2KℓmdΩ2)e−iωt...

  7. [6]

    standard

    Odd-parity sector a. Stellar perturbation equations We next present stellar perturbations in the odd-parity sector. In the Regge-Wheeler gauge, the odd-parity sec- tor of metric perturbations with harmonic decomposition takes the form, h− µνdxµdxν = 2hℓmSℓm θ dtdθ + 2hℓmSℓm φ dtdφ +2hℓm 1 Sℓm θ drdθ + 2hℓm 1 Sℓm φ drdφ e−iωt. (B27) Here, hℓm = hℓm(r), hℓm...

  8. [7]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 108 references
  1. [8]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 9, 011001 (2019), arXiv:1805.11579 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [9]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi GBM, INTEGRAL, IceCube, AstroSat Cadmium Zinc Telluride Imager Team, IPN, Insight-Hxmt, ANTARES, Swift, AGILE Team, 1M2H Team, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM, DES, DLT40, GRAWITA, Fermi-LAT, ATCA, ASKAP, Las Cumbres Observa- tory Gr...

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Kasen, B

    D. Kasen, B. Metzger, J. Barnes, E. Quataert, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Nature 551, 80 (2017), arXiv:1710.05463 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [11]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rept. 621, 127 (2016), arXiv:1512.07820 [astro-ph.SR]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [12]

    ¨Ozel and P

    F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.54, 401 (2016), arXiv:1603.02698 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [13]

    G. F. Burgio, H. J. Schulze, I. Vidana, and J. B. Wei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 120, 103879 (2021), arXiv:2105.03747 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [14]

    B. A. Jacoby, A. Hotan, M. Bailes, S. Ord, and S. R. Kulkarni, Astrophys. J. Lett. 629, L113 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0507420

    2005 arXiv

  8. [15]

    J. P. W. Verbiest, M. Bailes, W. van Straten, G. B. Hobbs, R. T. Edwards, R. N. Manchester, N. D. R. Bhat, J. M. Sarkissian, B. A. Jacoby, and S. R. Kulka- rni, Astrophys. J. 679, 675 (2008), arXiv:0801.2589 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Demorest, T

    P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, and J. Hessels, Nature 467, 1081 (2010), arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  10. [17]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, P. S. Ray, R. M. Ludlam, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, C. L. Baker, A. V. Bilous, D. Chakrabarty, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, S. M. Morsink, and 21 T. E. Strohmayer, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 887, L21 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bog- danov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, R. M. Ludlam, S. Mahmoodifar, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, T. E. Strohmayer, K. S. Wood, T. Enoto, R. Foster, T. Okajima, G. Prigozhin,...

    2019

  12. [19]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewenstein, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, M. T. Wolff, C. L. Baker, T. Cazeau, S. Man- thripragada, C. B. Markwardt, T. Okajima, S. Pollard, I. Cogna...

    2021

  13. [20]

    Choudhury, T

    D. Choudhury, T. Salmi, S. Vinciguerra, T. E. Riley, Y. Kini, A. L. Watts, B. Dorsman, S. Bogdanov, S. Guil- lot, P. S. Ray, D. J. Reardon, R. A. Remillard, A. V. Bilous, D. Huppenkothen, J. M. Lattimer, N. Ruther- ford, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. M. Morsink, and W. C....

    2024

  14. [21]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [22]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 892, L3 (2020), arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [23]

    C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 9, 3 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0510072

    2006

  17. [24]

    Berti et al., Class

    E. Berti et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 243001 (2015), arXiv:1501.07274 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Cardoso, E

    V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, A. Maselli, P. Pani, and G. Ra- poso, Phys. Rev. D 95, 084014 (2017), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 089901 (2017)], arXiv:1701.01116 [gr- qc]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Kramer et al., Phys

    M. Kramer et al., Phys. Rev. X 11, 041050 (2021), arXiv:2112.06795 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021

  20. [27]

    Shao and K

    L. Shao and K. Yagi, Sci. Bull. 67, 1946 (2022), arXiv:2209.03351 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Yunes, X

    N. Yunes, X. Siemens, and K. Yagi, (2024), arXiv:2408.05240 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    R. A. Hulse and J. H. Taylor, Astrophys. J. Lett. 195, L51 (1975)

    1975

  23. [30]

    P. Pani, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and J. Read, Phys. Rev. D 84, 104035 (2011), arXiv:1109.0928 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Pani and E

    P. Pani and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D 90, 024025 (2014), arXiv:1405.4547 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Yagi and M

    K. Yagi and M. Stepniczka, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044017 (2021), arXiv:2105.01614 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Creci, T

    G. Creci, T. Hinderer, and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124073 (2023), arXiv:2308.11323 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [34]

    van Gemeren, B

    I. van Gemeren, B. Shiralilou, and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D 108, 024026 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 109, 089901 (2024)], arXiv:2302.08480 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Creci, I

    G. Creci, I. van Gemeren, T. Hinderer, and J. Steinhoff, (2024), arXiv:2412.06620 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    R. F. Diedrichs, S. Tsujikawa, and K. Yagi, (2025), arXiv:2501.07998 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [37]

    K. Yagi, D. Blas, N. Yunes, and E. Barausse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 161101 (2014), arXiv:1307.6219 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [38]

    K. Yagi, D. Blas, E. Barausse, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 89, 084067 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 90, 069902 (2014), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 90, 069901 (2014)], arXiv:1311.7144 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [39]

    K. Yagi, L. C. Stein, N. Yunes, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 87, 084058 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 93, 089909 (2016)], arXiv:1302.1918 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Saffer and K

    A. Saffer and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D104, 124052 (2021), arXiv:2110.02997 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Science 341, 365 (2013), arXiv:1302.4499 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 88, 023009 (2013), arXiv:1303.1528 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Phys. Rept. 681, 1 (2017), arXiv:1608.02582 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Pappas and T

    G. Pappas and T. A. Apostolatos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 121101 (2014), arXiv:1311.5508 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Chakrabarti, T

    S. Chakrabarti, T. Delsate, N. G¨ urlebeck, and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 201102 (2014), arXiv:1311.6509 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [46]

    K. Yagi, K. Kyutoku, G. Pappas, N. Yunes, and T. A. Apostolatos, Phys. Rev. D 89, 124013 (2014), arXiv:1403.6243 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Baub¨ ock, E

    M. Baub¨ ock, E. Berti, D. Psaltis, and F. ¨Ozel, Astro- phys. J. 777, 68 (2013), arXiv:1306.0569 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Yagi, Phys

    K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D 89, 043011 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 96, 129904 (2017), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 97, 129901 (2018)], arXiv:1311.0872 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Maselli, V

    A. Maselli, V. Cardoso, V. Ferrari, L. Gualtieri, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 88, 023007 (2013), arXiv:1304.2052 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  43. [50]

    T. K. Chan, Y. H. Sham, P. T. Leung, and L. M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 90, 124023 (2014), arXiv:1408.3789 [gr- qc]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Sotani and B

    H. Sotani and B. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123002 (2021), arXiv:2109.08145 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [52]

    L. C. Stein, K. Yagi, and N. Yunes, Astrophys. J. 788, 15 (2014), arXiv:1312.4532 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 91, 123008 (2015), arXiv:1503.02726 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Martinon, A

    G. Martinon, A. Maselli, L. Gualtieri, and V. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. D 90, 064026 (2014), arXiv:1406.7661 [gr- qc]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Bretz, K

    J. Bretz, K. Yagi, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 92, 083009 (2015), arXiv:1507.02278 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Haskell, R

    B. Haskell, R. Ciolfi, F. Pannarale, and L. Rez- zolla, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 438, L71 (2014), arXiv:1309.3885 [astro-ph.SR]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Z. Zhu, A. Li, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D 102, 084058 (2020), arXiv:2005.02677 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Punturo et al., Class

    M. Punturo et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  52. [59]

    Jim´ enez Forteza, T

    X. Jim´ enez Forteza, T. Abdelsalhin, P. Pani, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D 98, 124014 (2018), arXiv:1807.08016 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Abdelsalhin, L

    T. Abdelsalhin, L. Gualtieri, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104046 (2018), arXiv:1805.01487 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Banihashemi and J

    B. Banihashemi and J. Vines, Phys. Rev. D 101, 064003 (2020), arXiv:1805.07266 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Landry, (2018), arXiv:1805.01882 [gr-qc]

    P. Landry, (2018), arXiv:1805.01882 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Henry, G

    Q. Henry, G. Faye, and L. Blanchet, Phys. Rev. D 102, 044033 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 089901 (2023), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 111, 029901 (2025)], arXiv:2005.13367 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Castro, L

    G. Castro, L. Gualtieri, A. Maselli, and P. Pani, Phys. 22 Rev. D 106, 024011 (2022), arXiv:2204.12510 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Narikawa, Phys

    T. Narikawa, Phys. Rev. D 108, 063029 (2023), arXiv:2307.02033 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [66]

    K. Yagi, L. C. Stein, G. Pappas, N. Yunes, and T. A. Apostolatos, Phys. Rev. D 90, 063010 (2014), arXiv:1406.7587 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Y. H. Sham, T. K. Chan, L. M. Lin, and P. T. Leung, Astrophys. J. 798, 121 (2015), arXiv:1410.8271 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Kyutoku, (2025), arXiv:2503.00098 [gr-qc]

    K. Kyutoku, (2025), arXiv:2503.00098 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Akmal, V

    A. Akmal, V. R. Pandharipande, and D. G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1804 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9804027

    1998 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Douchin and P

    F. Douchin and P. Haensel, Astron. Astrophys.380, 151 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0111092

    2001 arXiv

  64. [71]

    J. M. Lattimer and F. D. Swesty, Nucl. Phys. A 535, 331 (1991)

    1991

  65. [72]

    H. Shen, H. Toki, K. Oyamatsu, and K. Sumiyoshi, Nucl. Phys. A 637, 435 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9805035

    1998 arXiv

  66. [73]

    H. Shen, H. Toki, K. Oyamatsu, and K. Sumiyoshi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 100, 1013 (1998), arXiv:nucl- th/9806095

    1998

  67. [74]

    Posada, J

    C. Posada, J. Hlad´ ık, and Z. Stuchl´ ık, Phys. Rev. D 105, 104020 (2022), arXiv:2201.05209 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Jiang and K

    N. Jiang and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D 99, 124029 (2019), arXiv:1904.05954 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  69. [76]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55, 364 (1939)

    1939

  70. [77]

    Favata, Phys

    M. Favata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 101101 (2014), arXiv:1310.8288 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Jiang and K

    N. Jiang and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 124006 (2020), arXiv:2003.10498 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  72. [79]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

    T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J. 677, 1216 (2008), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 697, 964 (2009)], arXiv:0711.2420 [astro- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  73. [80]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084035 (2009), arXiv:0906.0096 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  74. [81]

    Binnington and E

    T. Binnington and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084018 (2009), arXiv:0906.1366 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Katagiri, H

    T. Katagiri, H. Nakano, and K. Omukai, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084049 (2023), arXiv:2304.04551 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Katagiri, V

    T. Katagiri, V. Cardoso, T. Ikeda, and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D 111, 084081 (2025), arXiv:2410.02531 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Katagiri, K

    T. Katagiri, K. Yagi, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 111, 084080 (2025), arXiv:2409.18034 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Damour, A

    T. Damour, A. Nagar, and L. Villain, Phys. Rev. D 85, 123007 (2012), arXiv:1203.4352 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  79. [87]

    E. E. Flanagan and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D 77, 021502 (2008), arXiv:0709.1915 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  80. [88]

    https://github.com/TakuyaKatagiri/Theory_ universal_Love

  81. [89]

    Postnikov, M

    S. Postnikov, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D 82, 024016 (2010), arXiv:1004.5098 [astro- ph.SR]

    2010 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Landry and E

    P. Landry and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 91, 104026 (2015), arXiv:1504.06606 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  83. [91]

    P. Pani, L. Gualtieri, T. Abdelsalhin, and X. Jim´ enez-Forteza, Phys. Rev. D 98, 124023 (2018), arXiv:1810.01094 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  84. [92]

    P. Pani, L. Gualtieri, A. Maselli, and V. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. D 92, 024010 (2015), arXiv:1503.07365 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Landry and E

    P. Landry and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 91, 104018 (2015), arXiv:1503.07366 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  86. [94]

    P. Pani, L. Gualtieri, and V. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. D 92, 124003 (2015), arXiv:1509.02171 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Majumder, K

    B. Majumder, K. Yagi, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 92, 024020 (2015), arXiv:1504.02506 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  88. [96]

    L. Hui, A. Joyce, R. Penco, L. Santoni, and A. R. Solomon, JCAP 01, 032 (2022), arXiv:2105.01069 [hep- th]

    2022 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Katagiri, M

    T. Katagiri, M. Kimura, H. Nakano, and K. Omukai, Phys. Rev. D 107, 124030 (2023), arXiv:2209.10469 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Charalambous, S

    P. Charalambous, S. Dubovsky, and M. M. Ivanov, JHEP 10, 175 (2022), arXiv:2209.02091 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  91. [99]

    H. A. Buchdahl, Phys. Rev. 116, 1027 (1959)

    1959

  92. [100]

    Regge and J

    T. Regge and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 108, 1063 (1957)

    1957

  93. [101]

    Lindblom and S

    L. Lindblom and S. L. Detweiler, Astrophys. J. 53, 73 (1983)

    1983

  94. [102]

    J. L. Friedman, Commun. Math. Phys. 62, 247 (1978)

    1978

  95. [103]

    NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Func- tions,

    DLMF, “ NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Func- tions,” https://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.2.0 of 2024- 03-15, f. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V. Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A. McClain, eds

    2024

  96. [104]

    Poisson, Phys

    E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 103, 064023 (2021), arXiv:2012.10184 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  97. [105]

    T. K. Chan, A. P. O. Chan, and P. T. Leung, Phys. Rev. D 91, 044017 (2015), arXiv:1411.7141 [astro-ph.SR]

    2015 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Lowrey, K

    T. Lowrey, K. Yagi, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024075 (2025), arXiv:2410.06358 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Price and K

    R. Price and K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J. 155, 163 (1969)

    1969

  100. [108]

    https://github.com/nj2nu/I-C_Love-C_ 6thorderSeriesExpansion_Coefficients

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.