Asteroseismology and Universal Relations in Neutron Stars with Gravitationally Bound Dark Matter

Ankit Kumar; Hajime Sotani

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Asteroseismology and Universal Relations in Neutron Stars with Gravitationally Bound Dark Matter

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gravitationally bound dark matter lowers the maximum mass and shifts oscillation frequencies of neutron stars, yet leaves the I-Love universal relation essentially intact.

desk verdict Useful DM-admixed neutron star oscillation study, but the αMχ degeneracy is unsupported because the DM EOS is never written down. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00311 v1 pith:E55LSFTP submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.HE

Ankit Kumar , Hajime Sotani This is my paper

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords darkmatteradmixedneutronstarsHiggsportaluniversalrelationsI-Loverelationradialoscillationsf-moderelativisticCowlingapproximationmass-radius

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether neutron stars containing gravitationally bound dark matter can still be read with the standard asteroseismology tools built for ordinary neutron stars. Using a single-fluid model in which dark matter couples to nuclear matter through the Higgs portal and is distributed according to a density profile tied to baryon density, it computes equilibrium structures, radial and non-radial oscillation modes, and three EOS-insensitive universal relations connecting bulk stellar properties. The central result is that dark matter compresses the star, lowers its maximum mass, and shifts the radial and f-mode frequencies in a way that depends on how sharply the dark matter is concentrated. Yet the I-Love relation survives almost unchanged, and the f-mode/compactness relation stays tighter than in earlier uniform-dark-matter models, meaning most of the parameter space remains interpretable with ordinary tools while mass and mode measurements could still reveal dark matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the prescribed dark-matter density profile $n_{\rm DM}/n_0 = \alpha\left((n_B-n_t)/n_0\right)^\beta$, anchored to the baryon density above the core-crust threshold $n_t$; the product $\alpha M_\chi$ (with $M_\chi$ the dark-matter particle mass) emerges as the effective parameter controlling the dark-matter energy density and its gravitational pull. This profile is inserted into a single-fluid, barotropic equation of state, so dark matter and baryons respond coherently to perturbations and no composition-gradient g-modes appear. Around this background the paper solves the standard first-order radial oscillation eigenvalue system and the relativistic Cowling-approximation equations for the quadrupolar f- and p1-modes, then compares the resulting dimensionless tidal deformability $\Lambda$, compactness $C$, moment of inertia $\bar{I}$, and mass-scaled f-mode frequency $f_f M_{1.4}$ against fits built from pure-baryon stars.

What would settle it

A two-fluid calculation with the same baryon-tied dark-matter content and a separate dark-matter pressure would settle the single-fluid assumption: if, for the same $\alpha M_\chi$ and $\beta$ values, the I-Love deviations in that model exceed the roughly $2.5\%$ scatter of the pure-baryon baseline, the paper's I-Love-survival conclusion does not carry over to two-fluid dark matter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's claim is that a gravitationally trapped dark matter component with number density $n_{\rm DM}/n_0 = \alpha\left((n_B-n_t)/n_0\right)^\beta$ (with threshold at the core-crust transition) changes neutron stars in a specific, predictable way: the product $\alpha M_\chi$ controls the compression, higher steepness $\beta$ concentrates dark matter in the core, the maximum mass drops as either parameter grows, and the fundamental radial mode still vanishes exactly at the maximum-mass point. In the non-radial sector, the f-mode frequency rises with dark matter content because the star becomes denser on average, while the first pressure overtone changes less. Testing the standard universal relations against these configurations, the paper finds that the I-Love relation remains essentially intact even for sharply peaked dark matter profiles, while the $\Lambda$-compactness and f-mode/compactness relations deviate only in extreme regions of parameter space.

Load-bearing premise

The entire calculation stands on the assumed dark-matter density profile, a power law tied to baryon density above the core-crust threshold, and on treating dark matter and baryons as one barotropic fluid that moves together, rather than deriving the profile from the particle physics or letting the two components support separate pressure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is right, a neutron star's maximum mass drops measurably with dark-matter content, so a confirmed high-mass pulsar can be used to bound $\alpha M_\chi$ and $\beta$ for this class of models.
The I-Love relation remains a trustworthy observational tool even if dark matter is present, so tidal measurements alone will not easily reveal dark matter; deviations must instead be sought in f-mode frequencies or in the $\Lambda$--compactness plane near the maximum mass.
The f-mode frequency rises with dark-matter content because of higher average density, so kilohertz gravitational-wave detections of f-modes could distinguish dark-matter-admixed stars from ordinary ones of the same mass.
The $\beta$-dependent reversal of radial-mode peak frequencies means steeply concentrated dark matter can mimic or cancel the effect of a stiffer equation of state on the radial spectrum, so interpreting observed radial modes requires knowing the dark-matter concentration.
Compared with uniform-dark-matter models, the baryon-tied profile keeps the $f_f M_{1.4}$--$C$ relation tight, implying that conclusions about dark matter drawn from universal-relation tests depend on the assumed dark-matter distribution.

Reading between the lines

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

If dark matter were instead a dynamically independent fluid, composition gradients would create g-modes and could produce larger violations of the universal relations than this single-fluid treatment reports; the paper itself flags this as the natural next step.
Because only the product $\alpha M_\chi$ matters for the equilibrium structure, a single measurement of mass, radius, or a mode frequency cannot separately fix the dark-matter particle mass and its local abundance; joint radius and f-mode observations might break that degeneracy.
The finding that the $\Lambda$--$C$ relation develops $\sim 100\%$ deviations only near the maximum mass suggests that merger remnants or near-critical-mass stars are the best places to look for dark-matter signatures, while low-mass stars remain effectively indistinguishable from ordinary neutron stars.
A testable extension would be to derive the dark-matter profile from gravitational capture and self-interaction rather than prescribing it by hand, and then to compare the predicted f-mode and I-Love deviations with those of the assumed profile.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper does something concrete and useful—it replaces the usual constant-DM-density assumption with a baryon-density-tied DM profile and computes radial and non-radial oscillation spectra plus universal-relation tests across three RMF EOSs. The I-Love relation stays tight, and the fM-C relation is markedly tighter than in the constant-DM model of Ref. [56]. That is a genuine step forward for the asteroseismology of DM-admixed stars. The numerical workflow is standard and the stability check (omega^2 = 0 at maximum mass) is consistent with the turning-point theorem. The universal-relation tests are honest empirical comparisons against no-DM baselines; the paper even reports the no-DM scatter (20% for Lambda-C, 4.5% for fM-C, 2.5% for I-Love), which gives a fair yardstick.

The soft spots are real, though. The paper never gives the DM equation of state—the explicit epsilon_DM and p_DM that enter the TOV equations. It only says the total epsilon and p are functions of nuclear and DM contributions. As a result, the central organizing claim that models with the same alpha*M_chi produce identical M-R curves is unsupported. For a free Fermi gas realization of Eq. (2), p_DM depends on alpha^(5/3)/M_chi in the nonrelativistic limit, not on alpha*M_chi alone, so fixing alpha*M_chi while changing alpha and M_chi separately will change the pressure. The degeneracy might hold if the actual EOS is different, but without the EOS the reader cannot tell. This matters because the 'extreme parameter' outlier analysis and the conclusion that universal relations survive are framed entirely in terms of alpha*M_chi. If the degeneracy fails, those outlier cases are not well defined.

A related reproducibility problem is the missing units for alpha*M_chi. The paper says M_chi is the dark matter particle mass but never states units; panels labeled alpha*M_chi = 0.01 to 1.00 are ambiguous (is it GeV, and is alpha dimensionless?). The Cowling approximation bias (up to ~20-30% for f-modes) is mentioned but not propagated into the reported deviations, so the quantitative deviations in Figs. 6-8 are not robust at that level. The density profile Eq. (3) is prescribed from previous work rather than derived from the Higgs-portal Lagrangian or a capture calculation; that is fine as a phenomenological choice, but it should be flagged more clearly as a model assumption rather than a prediction.

Bottom line: this is a serious numerical study with a useful new ingredient and an interesting qualitative result about universal relations. It deserves peer review, but the referee should insist on an explicit DM EOS, a proof or retraction of the alpha*M_chi degeneracy, units, and ideally released code. I would not cite the quantitative results until those are fixed, but I would bring it to the next group meeting.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies neutron stars admixed with dark matter in a single-fluid formalism. The DM component is prescribed by the number-density profile nDM/n0 = α((nB - nt)/n0)^β (Eq. 3), with nt at the core-crust transition, using three RMF baryonic EOSs (IOPB-I, BigApple, NL3). The authors solve the TOV equations, compute radial oscillation eigenfrequencies with the Chanmugam system, non-radial f- and p1-modes in the Cowling approximation, and the moment of inertia in the Hartle slow-rotation approximation. They find that increasing αMχ reduces the maximum mass and that the radial-mode spectrum has a non-monotonic β dependence; they also test three universal relations and conclude that the I-Love relation remains remarkably robust, while the Λ-C and f-mode-compactness relations show deviations only at extreme parameters.

Significance. If the reported parameter degeneracy is correct, the paper would provide a practical message: for most of the considered αMχ-β space, DM-admixed neutron stars can still be interpreted with standard universal-relation tools, with only localized outliers. The numerical workflow is standard and includes a useful consistency check: the vanishing of the fundamental radial-mode frequency coincides with the maximum-mass configuration, as expected from the turning-point theorem. The use of pure-baryonic fitted baselines as a benchmark is a legitimate empirical procedure rather than a circular prediction. However, the DM sector is not closed in the manuscript: the dark-matter equation of state is never specified, and the key claim that the product αMχ alone controls the results is not a consequence of Eq. (3) for a fermionic DM fluid. The central conclusions therefore rest on an incomplete model specification.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II, Eq. (3) and following text] The manuscript never writes down the DM energy density ε_DM and pressure p_DM as functions of nDM and Mχ, even though the TOV equations (5)-(7) require them. Consequently the assertion that 'models with the same αMχ produce identical mass-radius curves' is not established by Eq. (3). For a free Fermi gas realization of the Higgs-portal Lagrangian (2), p_DM depends on the Fermi momentum x=(3π^2 nDM)^{1/3}/Mχ; in the nonrelativistic limit p_DM ∝ α^{5/3}/Mχ, which is not a function of αMχ. Since all plots are organized by αMχ, this is a load-bearing gap: either the explicit composite EOS must be given and the degeneracy proved, or the parameter study must be redone with the actual independent parameters α and Mχ.
[Sec. V, Figs. 6-8] The outlier analysis that supports the main robustness conclusion is not reproducible without the DM EOS. The baseline fits in Eqs. (21), (22), (24) and the deviations defined by Eqs. (19)-(20) depend on the specific ε_DM and p_DM used in the TOV integration. If the DM pressure is nonzero and Mχ-dependent, then the 'extreme parameter' points (e.g., αMχ=0.50, β=2 in Fig. 6) could move substantially, changing the claim of only localized deviations. Please provide the EOS or explicitly state the simplifying assumption (e.g., pressureless DM) and justify its consistency with the stated Higgs-portal fermion model.
[Sec. III, Eqs. (8)-(10)] The radial-oscillation and sound-speed treatment assumes a barotropic single-fluid composite in which DM is slaved to the baryon density. This is a substantive modeling assumption: if DM instead has its own pressure support and composition degree of freedom, the effective adiabatic index (10) and the perturbation equations would generally acquire additional terms, and composition-gradient g-modes would appear in the non-radial spectrum. The paper acknowledges the g-mode consequence in Sec. IV, but the stability analysis in Sec. III should state this limitation as well, because the central mass-reduction and frequency trends may be modified in a two-fluid treatment.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (19)] Equation (19) defines Δ as |Y_actual - Y_fit|/Y_actual, while the text in several places says the deviation is computed relative to the fitted curve; this should be made consistent (e.g., use Y_fit in the denominator or state explicitly that the denominator is the actual value).
[Fig. 1 bottom panels] The bottom panels are labeled MDM/M but the text does not define how MDM is computed from the DM energy density; please add the definition or clarify the label.
[Sec. III near Eq. (13) and Eq. (17)] There are typos: 'sellar' should be 'stellar' in Sec. III near Eq. (13), and 'arbitary' should be 'arbitrary' near Eq. (17).
[Throughout] The quantity αMχ is used as a single label with values like 0.01-1.00 but its units (presumably GeV for Mχ) are never stated; please specify the units and the range of Mχ used.
[Sec. V] Since the Cowling approximation can overestimate f-mode frequencies by 20-30% (as noted in Sec. IV), the paper should add a sentence in Sec. V explaining whether the universal-relation conclusions are robust to this systematic frequency shift.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The αMχ degeneracy that organizes the paper's parameter space is built into Eq. (3) and imported from the authors' prior work; the universal-relation robustness claim itself is a computed, non-circular benchmark.

self definitional [Sec. II, Eq. (3) and the accompanying Fig. 1 discussion]
"This choice is motivated by our earlier findings [80], which show that the product αMχ primarily controls the total DM energy density and hence its gravitational effect on the star. At fixed β, we observe that models with the same αMχ values produce identical mass-radius curves, independent of the individual values of α or Mχ."

Eq. (3) defines nDM/n0 = α((nB−nt)/n0)^β. The paper states that the product αMχ primarily controls the total DM energy density; with the DM contribution entering the TOV integrals (5)-(7) through that energy density, the equilibrium equations depend on α and Mχ only through αMχ. The 'identical mass-radius curves' observation is therefore a consequence of how the DM energy density is constructed from Eq. (3), not a dynamical prediction of the Higgs-portal Lagrangian. The degeneracy is attributed to same-author prior work [80], and no explicit DM equation of state is provided, so the αMχ labeling of every subsequent plot inherits a reduction by construction rather than an independently derived degeneracy.

full rationale

The paper's universal-relation analysis is a legitimate empirical benchmark: the baseline Λ-C, ff M-C, and I-Love fits are constructed from purely baryonic stars, and DM-admixed configurations are then compared to those fits. This measures deviations from a reference rather than assuming the deviations, so it is not circular. The radial and non-radial oscillation equations are standard Sturm-Liouville/Cowling systems solved with stated boundary conditions, and the f-mode scaling with average density is checked as a posteriori consistency, not used as a fitted prediction. The main circularity concern is the αMχ degeneracy: Eq. (3) plus the asserted controlling role of αMχ in the DM energy density makes the 'same αMχ gives same mass-radius curve' claim true by construction, and the paper justifies it by citing the authors' own prior work [80] rather than deriving it from the Higgs-portal Lagrangian or a stated DM EOS. This affects the organization of the parameter space and the interpretation of the plots, but the central claim—that the I-Love and other universal relations remain robust across most DM-admixed configurations—is a separately computed numerical result that does not reduce to the input profile. The paper also explicitly acknowledges its single-fluid barotropic limitation and the possible appearance of g-modes in a two-fluid treatment, which is an honest stated assumption rather than a hidden circular step. Overall, the derivation is largely self-contained with one load-bearing self-imported construction, giving a moderate circularity score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is built on a prescribed DM distribution rather than a self-contained particle-physics derivation. The only numbers tuned by hand are alpha-M-chi, beta, and nt; the universal-relation fits are empirical references. No genuinely new particle or force is introduced by this paper.

free parameters (4)

alpha-M-chi (composite DM scaling) = 0.01, 0.05, 0.10, 0.50, 1.00 (units not specified)
Controls the DM energy density through Eq. (3); varied by hand over this grid rather than derived.
beta (DM profile steepness) = 1, 2, 4
Power-law index in Eq. (3); chosen to probe broad versus sharply peaked DM cores.
nt (DM threshold density) = core-crust transition density
Set by hand so that DM is absent from the crust; parameterizes where DM turns on.
Baseline universal-relation fit coefficients (a_n, b_n, d_n, k_n) = Values given below Eqs. (21), (22), (24), (A2)
Fitted to purely baryonic TOV models; used as reference curves for deviations, so the robustness statement measures scatter around these fits.

assumptions (7)

standard math Einstein field equations for static, spherically symmetric perfect fluid (TOV equations, Eqs. 4-7)
Background equilibrium structure is obtained by integrating these equations; standard GR.
domain assumption RMF nuclear EOS parameter sets NL3, BigApple, IOPB-I are valid at supra-nuclear densities
The three parameterizations are adopted from prior literature [66,70,72] and calibrated to nuclear and astrophysical constraints there; the paper does not re-derive them.
domain assumption Higgs-portal fermionic dark matter Lagrangian, Eq. (2), with couplings y and f from Refs. [16,73]
Provides the DM sector used to justify the single-fluid EOS; the paper does not state the coupling values or derive the resulting DM thermodynamic functions.
ad hoc to paper Single-fluid barotropic EOS: DM number density is slaved to baryon density, so no composition gradients and no g-modes
Invoked in Sec. III and Sec. IV; this suppresses the g-mode channel and assumes coherent DM-baryon response without computing thermalization timescales.
domain assumption Relativistic Cowling approximation for non-radial modes (metric perturbations neglected)
Sec. IV uses Eqs. (14)-(15); the paper quotes up to 20-30% f-mode frequency overestimate from [91,92].
standard math Turning-point criterion dM/depsilon_c = 0 marks onset of dynamical instability
Sec. III uses this to truncate stable branches; proven in [29] and cross-checked by omega-squared = 0 in Fig. 2.
domain assumption SLy4a EOS for crust and zero DM below nt
Used to describe low-density regime; DM is set to zero below threshold, a modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asteroseismology and Universal Relations in Neutron Stars with Gravitationally Bound Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E55LSFTP

@misc{pith2026250600311,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asteroseismology and Universal Relations in Neutron Stars with Gravitationally Bound Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E55LSFTP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00311}
}

abstract

We investigate the structural, dynamical, and oscillatory properties of neutron stars admixed with dark matter, modeled via a single-fluid formalism where dark matter interacts with nuclear matter through an effective Higgs-portal coupling. Employing three relativistic mean-field nuclear matter equations of state-IOPB-I, BigApple, and NL3- we incorporate a physically motivated dark matter number density profile that scales with baryon density and is controlled by two parameters: a scaling factor $\alpha M_\chi$ ($M_{\chi}$ being the mass of dark matter particle) and a steepness index $\beta$. We construct equilibrium configurations and analyze their stability via radial oscillations, finding that dark matter-induced gravitational compression lowers the maximum mass and alters the radial mode spectrum in a nontrivial, $\beta$-dependent fashion. We also compute the frequencies of non-radial fluid oscillations under the relativistic Cowling approximation and analyze the persistence of universal relations in the presence of dark matter. While deviations appear under extreme configurations, the overall structure of these relations remains robust. Our findings offer a consistent framework to probe dark matter effects on neutron star dynamics across a range of realistic models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00311 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. The top panels display the mass-radius relations for NSs constructed using the NL3, BigApple, and IOPB-I RMF parameter sets, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Frequency of the fundamental radial oscillation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Stellar mass (top row) and the frequency of the fundamental radial oscillation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Frequency of the fundamental non-radial ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dimensionless tidal deformability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as Figs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Fundamental ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Mass-scaled fundamental ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

Effects of dark matter and magnetic field on neutron star properties in relativistic mean-field theory: A single-fluid approach
astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Fermionic dark matter and strong central magnetic fields both reduce neutron-star maximum mass and radius and lower tidal deformability in single-fluid RMF models, remaining compatible with GW/NICER constraints over t...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[56]

H. C. Das, A. Kumar, S. K. Biswal, and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123006 (2021)

work page 2021
[1]

¨Ozel and P

F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 54, 401 (2016)

2016
[2]

Bogdanov, F

S. Bogdanov, F. K. Lamb, S. Mahmoodifar, M. C. Miller, S. M. Morsink, T. E. Riley, T. E. Strohmayer, A. K. Tung, A. L. Watts, A. J. Dittmann, D. Chakrabarty, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, and K. C. Gendreau, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 887, L26 (2019)

2019
[3]

Bogdanov, A

S. Bogdanov, A. J. Dittmann, W. C. G. Ho, F. K. Lamb, S. Mahmoodifar, M. C. Miller, S. M. Morsink, T. E. Riley, T. E. Strohmayer, A. L. Watts, D. Choudhury, S. Guillot, A. K. Harding, P. S. Ray, Z. Wadiasingh, M. T. Wolff, C. B. Markwardt, Z. Arzoumanian, and K. C. Gendreau, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 914, L15 (2021)

2021
[4]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, and et. al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

2017
[5]

Goldman and S

I. Goldman and S. Nussinov, Phys. Rev. D 40, 3221 (1989)

1989
[6]

Kouvaris and N

C. Kouvaris and N. G. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. D92, 063526 (2015)

2015
[7]

Shawqi and S

S. Shawqi and S. M. Morsink, The Astrophysical Journal 975, 123 (2024)

2024

Show all 102 references

[8]

Giangrandi, V

E. Giangrandi, V . Sagun, O. Ivanytskyi, C. Providˆencia, and T. Dietrich, The Astrophysical Journal 953, 115 (2023)

2023
[9]

S. L. Pitz and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D111, 043050 (2025)

2025
[10]

´Avila, E

A. ´Avila, E. Giangrandi, V . Sagun, O. Ivanytskyi, and C. Providˆencia, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 528, 6319 (2024)

2024
[11]

Konstantinou, The Astrophysical Journal 968, 83 (2024)

A. Konstantinou, The Astrophysical Journal 968, 83 (2024)

2024
[12]

Ivanytskyi, V

O. Ivanytskyi, V . Sagun, and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063028 (2020)

2020
[13]

Mariani, C

M. Mariani, C. Albertus, M. d. R. Alessandroni, M. G. Orsaria, M. A. Perez-Garcia, and I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 527, 6795 (2023)

2023
[14]

M. F. Barbat, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and L. Tolos, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023013 (2024)

2024
[15]

Kumar, S

A. Kumar, S. Girmohanta, and H. Sotani, Multi-messenger and cosmological constraints on dark matter through two-fluid neutron star modeling (2025), arXiv:2501.16829 [astro-ph.HE]

2025
[16]

Panotopoulos and I

G. Panotopoulos and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D96, 083004 (2017)

2017
[17]

H. C. Das, A. Kumar, and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D104, 063028 (2021)

2021
[18]

Lourenc ¸o, C

O. Lourenc ¸o, C. H. Lenzi, T. Frederico, and M. Dutra, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043010 (2022)

2022
[19]

H. C. Das, A. Kumar, B. Kumar, S. K. Biswal, T. Nakatsukasa, A. Li, and S. K. Patra, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 495, 4893 (2020)

2020
[20]

Fuller and C

J. Fuller and C. D. Ott, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 450, L71 (2015)

2015
[21]

Kumar, H

A. Kumar, H. C. Das, and S. K. Patra, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 513, 1820 (2022)

2022
[22]

J. F. Acevedo, J. Bramante, and A. Goodman, Phys. Rev. D 103, 123022 (2021)

2021
[23]

Christensen-Dalsgaard, Rev

J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 1073 (2002)

2002
[24]

Andersson and K

N. Andersson and K. D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4134 (1996)

1996
[25]

Andersson and K

N. Andersson and K. D. Kokkotas, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 299, 1059 (1998)

1998
[26]

Sotani, K

H. Sotani, K. D. Kokkotas, and N. Stergioulas, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 375, 261 (2007)

2007
[27]

C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler,Gravitation (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973)

1973
[28]

Kokkotas, K. D. and Ruoff, J., A&A 366, 565 (2001)

2001
[29]

J. L. Friedman, J. R. Ipser, and R. D. Sorkin, Astrophys. J. 325, 722 (1988)

1988
[30]

B. K. Harrison, K. S. Thorne, M. Wakano, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation Theory and Gravitational Collapse (1965)

1965
[31]

J. L. Friedman, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 17, 199 (1996)

1996
[32]

Had ˇzi´c and Z

M. Had ˇzi´c and Z. Lin, Communications in Mathematical Physics 387, 729 (2021)

2021
[33]

Lindblom and S

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

1983
[34]

L. S. Finn, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 227, 265 (1987)

1987
[35]

P. N. McDermott, mnras 245, 508 (1990)

1990
[36]

Sotani, K

H. Sotani, K. Tominaga, and K.-i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 65, 024010 (2001)

2001
[37]

Andersson, The Astrophysical Journal 502, 708 (1998)

N. Andersson, The Astrophysical Journal 502, 708 (1998)

1998
[38]

Yoshida and U

S. Yoshida and U. Lee, aap 395, 201 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0210591 [astro-ph]

2002 arXiv
[39]

J. S. Heyl, The Astrophysical Journal 600, 939 (2004)

2004
[40]

Nagar, G

A. Nagar, G. D´ıaz, J. A. Pons, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. D 69, 124028 (2004)

2004
[41]

Bauswein, H.-T

A. Bauswein, H.-T. Janka, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. D 86, 063001 (2012)

2012
[42]

Sotani, Phys

H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D103, 123015 (2021), arXiv:2105.13212 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[43]

Guha Roy, T

D. Guha Roy, T. Malik, S. Bhattacharya, and S. Banik, The Astrophysical Journal 968, 124 (2024)

2024
[44]

K. D. Kokkotas and N. Stergioulas, aap 341, 110 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9805297 [astro-ph]

1999 arXiv
[45]

Yoshida, S

S. Yoshida, S. Karino, S. Yoshida, and Y . Eriguchi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 316, L1 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9910532

2000 arXiv
[46]

M. G. Alford, S. Mahmoodifar, and K. Schwenzer, Phys. Rev. D 85, 024007 (2012)

2012
[47]

J. Aasi, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, and et. al., The Astrophysical Journal 813, 39 (2015)

2015
[48]

Fesik and M

L. Fesik and M. A. Papa, The Astrophysical Journal 895, 11 (2020)

2020
[49]

Yagi and N

K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 88, 023009 (2013)

2013
[50]

Urbanec, J

M. Urbanec, J. C. Miller, and Z. Stuchl´ık, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 433, 1903 (2013)

2013
[51]

Torres-Forn´e, P

A. Torres-Forn´e, P. Cerd´a-Dur´an, M. Obergaulinger, B. M¨uller, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 051102 (2019)

2019
[52]

E. E. Flanagan and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D 77, 021502 (2008)

2008
[53]

Yagi and N

K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Classical and Quantum Gravity 33, 13LT01 (2016)

2016
[54]

Carson, A

Z. Carson, A. W. Steiner, and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D99, 043010 (2019)

2019
[55]

Koehn, E

H. Koehn, E. Giangrandi, N. Kunert, R. Somasundaram, V . Sagun, and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. D110, 103033 (2024)

2024
[57]

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 T. E. Strohmayer, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 887, L21 (2019)

2019
[58]

Vinciguerra, T

S. Vinciguerra, T. Salmi, A. L. Watts, D. Choudhury, T. E. Riley, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, Y . Kini, S. Guillot, D. Chakrabarty, 17 W. C. G. Ho, D. Huppenkothen, S. M. Morsink, Z. Wadiasingh, and M. T. Wolff, The Astrophysical Journal961, 62 (2024)

2024
[59]

Fonseca, H

E. Fonseca, H. T. Cromartie, T. T. Pennucci, P. S. Ray, A. Y . Kirichenko, S. M. Ransom, P. B. Demorest, I. H. Stairs, Z. Arzoumanian, L. Guillemot, A. Parthasarathy, M. Kerr, I. Cognard, P. T. Baker, H. Blumer, P. R. Brook, M. DeCesar, T. Dolch, F. A. Dong, E. C. Ferrara, W. ...

2021
[60]

A. J. Dittmann, M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, I. M. Holt, C. Chirenti, M. T. Wolff, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, S. M. Morsink, Z. Arzoumanian, and K. C. Gendreau, The Astrophysical Journal 974, 295 (2024)

2024
[61]

Walecka, Annals of Physics 83, 491 (1974)

J. Walecka, Annals of Physics 83, 491 (1974)

1974
[62]

Glendenning, Compact Stars

N. Glendenning, Compact Stars. Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics and General Relativity. (1996)

1996
[63]

Boguta and A

J. Boguta and A. R. Bodmer, nphysa 292, 413 (1977)

1977
[64]

Furnstahl, B

R. Furnstahl, B. D. Serot, and H.-B. Tang, Nuclear Physics A 615, 441 (1997)

1997
[65]

Cai and L.-W

B.-J. Cai and L.-W. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 85, 024302 (2012)

2012
[66]

G. A. Lalazissis, J. K¨onig, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C55, 540 (1997)

1997
[67]

Kubis and M

S. Kubis and M. Kutschera, Physics Letters B 399, 191 (1997)

1997
[68]

Ma ´nka, I

R. Ma ´nka, I. Bednarek, and G. Przybyła, Phys. Rev. C 62, 015802 (2000)

2000
[69]

Kumar, H

A. Kumar, H. C. Das, S. K. Biswal, B. Kumar, and S. K. Patra, The European Physical Journal C 80, 775 (2020)

2020
[70]

F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz, and B. Reed, Phys. Rev. C 102, 065805 (2020)

2020
[71]

Abbott, T

R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, and et. al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters 896, L44 (2020)

2020
[72]

Kumar, S

B. Kumar, S. K. Patra, and B. K. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. C 97, 045806 (2018)

2018
[73]

Kumar and H

A. Kumar and H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063001 (2024)

2024
[74]

A. Das, T. Malik, and A. C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. D99, 043016 (2019)

2019
[75]

H. C. Das, A. Kumar, and S. K. Patra, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 507, 4053 (2021)

2021
[76]

Routaray, S

P. Routaray, S. R. Mohanty, H. Das, S. Ghosh, P. Kalita, V . Parmar, and B. Kumar, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023 (10), 073

2023
[77]

A. G. Abac, C. C. Bernido, and J. P. H. Esguerra, Physics of the Dark Universe 40, 101185 (2023)

2023
[78]

Routaray, H

P. Routaray, H. C. Das, S. Sen, B. Kumar, G. Panotopoulos, and T. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D107, 103039 (2023)

2023
[79]

C. V . Flores, C. H. Lenzi, M. Dutra, O. Lourenc ¸o, and J. D. V . Arba˜nil, Phys. Rev. D 109, 083021 (2024)

2024
[80]

Kumar and H

A. Kumar and H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043016 (2025)

2025
[81]

and Haensel, P., A&A 380, 151 (2001)

Douchin, F. and Haensel, P., A&A 380, 151 (2001)

2001
[82]

Chabanat, P

E. Chabanat, P. Bonche, P. Haensel, J. Meyer, and R. Schaeffer, Nuclear Physics A 635, 231 (1998)

1998
[83]

Chandrasekhar, apj 140, 417 (1964)

S. Chandrasekhar, apj 140, 417 (1964)

1964
[84]

Chanmugam, Astrophys

G. Chanmugam, Astrophys. J. 217, 799 (1977)

1977
[85]

Gondek, P

D. Gondek, P. Haensel, and J. L. Zdunik, aap 325, 217 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9705157 [astro-ph]

1997 arXiv
[86]

Sotani and K

H. Sotani and K. Sumiyoshi, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 507, 2766 (2021)

2021
[87]

K. S. Thorne and A. Campolattaro, Non-Radial Pulsation of General-Relativistic Stellar Models. I. Analytic Analysis for L ¿= 2 (1967)

1967
[88]

Detweiler and L

S. Detweiler and L. Lindblom, Astrophys. J. 292, 12 (1985)

1985
[89]

T. G. Cowling, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 101, 367 (1941)

1941
[90]

P. N. McDermott, H. M. van Horn, and J. F. Scholl, Astrophys. J. 268, 837 (1983)

1983
[91]

Sotani and T

H. Sotani and T. Takiwaki, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063025 (2020)

2020
[92]

B. K. Pradhan, D. Chatterjee, M. Lanoye, and P. Jaikumar, Phys. Rev. C 106, 015805 (2022)

2022
[93]

Sotani, T

H. Sotani, T. Kuroda, T. Takiwaki, and K. Kotake, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123024 (2019)

2019
[94]

Maselli, V

A. Maselli, V . Cardoso, V . Ferrari, L. Gualtieri, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 88, 023007 (2013)

2013
[95]

L. K. Tsui and P. T. Leung, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 357, 1029 (2005)

2005
[96]

Yagi and N

K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Science 341, 365 (2013), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1236462

2013 doi
[97]

Hinderer, B

T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang, and J. S. Read, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123016 (2010)

2010
[98]

Sotani and A

H. Sotani and A. Dohi, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023007 (2022)

2022
[99]

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

1967
[100]

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

1968
[101]

Landry and B

P. Landry and B. Kumar, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 868, L22 (2018)

2018
[102]

Sotani and B

H. Sotani and B. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123002 (2021)

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [56]

H. C. Das, A. Kumar, S. K. Biswal, and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123006 (2021)

work page 2021

[2] [1]

¨Ozel and P

F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 54, 401 (2016)

2016

[3] [2]

Bogdanov, F

S. Bogdanov, F. K. Lamb, S. Mahmoodifar, M. C. Miller, S. M. Morsink, T. E. Riley, T. E. Strohmayer, A. K. Tung, A. L. Watts, A. J. Dittmann, D. Chakrabarty, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, and K. C. Gendreau, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 887, L26 (2019)

2019

[4] [3]

Bogdanov, A

S. Bogdanov, A. J. Dittmann, W. C. G. Ho, F. K. Lamb, S. Mahmoodifar, M. C. Miller, S. M. Morsink, T. E. Riley, T. E. Strohmayer, A. L. Watts, D. Choudhury, S. Guillot, A. K. Harding, P. S. Ray, Z. Wadiasingh, M. T. Wolff, C. B. Markwardt, Z. Arzoumanian, and K. C. Gendreau, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 914, L15 (2021)

2021

[5] [4]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, and et. al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

2017

[6] [5]

Goldman and S

I. Goldman and S. Nussinov, Phys. Rev. D 40, 3221 (1989)

1989

[7] [6]

Kouvaris and N

C. Kouvaris and N. G. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. D92, 063526 (2015)

2015

[8] [7]

Shawqi and S

S. Shawqi and S. M. Morsink, The Astrophysical Journal 975, 123 (2024)

2024