Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 48 references

I-Love-Q relations for Neutron Stars with Dark Energy

T0 review · 4 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 Adding a dark-energy fluid to neutron-star equations of state leaves the dimensionless I-Love-Q relations intact, with deviations of roughly 0.1–1% from the universal fit.

desk verdict A standard Hartle-Thorne computation shows the I-Love-Q relations survive a specific dark-energy fluid at the 1% level; the result is plausible but the unexplained oscillations in the tidal Love number need a referee's attention. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01889 v2 pith:2C546AGN submitted 2025-06-02 gr-qc

Simone D'Onofrio This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.40.Dg97.60.Jd95.36.+x
keywords I-Love-QrelationsneutronstarsdarkenergyequationofstatetidalLovenumbermomentinertiaquadrupoleHartle-Thorne
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 whose interior includes a dark-energy fluid still obey the I-Love-Q universal relations, which tie together moment of inertia, quadrupole moment, and tidal Love number independently of the equation of state. It computes these three observables for the SLy and FPS equations of state augmented with two dark-energy prescriptions: a cosmological-constant-like fluid and a $\beta\rho_d^2$ quintessence or phantom model. The result is that the dimensionless relations follow the standard Yagi–Yunes fit to within roughly 0.1–1% across the valid range. If correct, this means the universal relations remain usable for neutron stars even when dark energy contributes to the stellar fluid, extending their equation-of-state independence to a broader class of models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a single-fluid prescription that combines dark energy and baryonic matter into one perfect fluid, plus the Hartle–Thorne slow-rotation perturbation scheme for computing $I$ and $Q$ and the Hinderer formula for the tidal Love number. The dark-energy fluid is defined by $\rho_d=\alpha \rho_m e^{-\rho_s/\rho_m}$ and $P_d=-\rho_d+f(\rho_d)$, with $f=0$ for the $\Lambda$CDM case and $f=\beta\rho_d^2$ for the quintessence and phantom cases. The comparison against the Yagi–Yunes fit polynomial, Eq. (17), is what turns the computed moments into a statement about universality.

What would settle it

Recompute $I$, $Q$, and $\lambda$ for the same SLy and FPS equations of state and the same $\alpha$ and $\beta$ parameters using a two-fluid treatment in which dark energy and baryonic matter have independent conservation laws; if the dimensionless I-Love-Q curves then deviate from the Yagi–Yunes fit by more than about 1% anywhere in the valid mass range, the paper's central claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the I-Love-Q relations survive the inclusion of a dark-energy fluid in the equation of state. The author couples dark energy to ordinary matter through $\rho_d = \alpha \rho_m e^{-\rho_s/\rho_m}$ with $\rho_s = 5\times 10^{14}\,\mathrm{g/cm^3}$, takes the total pressure and density as $P=P_m+P_d$, $\rho=\rho_m+\rho_d$, and solves the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff and Hartle–Thorne equations for SLy and FPS stars at 300 Hz rotation. For $\alpha=0.025$ and $\beta=0,0.25,0.5$ in units of $\beta_0$, the dimensionless quantities $\bar I=I/M^3$, $\bar Q=-Q/(M S^2)$, and $\bar\lambda=\lambda/M^5$ deviate from the reference fit by roughly 0.1% to 1%, so the paper concludes that the relations make the trio even more general and equation-of-state independent.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes dark energy and ordinary matter behave as a single co-moving perfect fluid in hydrostatic equilibrium, with no separate conservation equation or momentum exchange between the two components.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measurement of any one of the trio—moment of inertia, quadrupole moment, or tidal Love number—can still be converted into estimates of the other two for neutron stars with this type of dark-energy contribution.
  • The dark-energy shifts in $\lambda(M)$ are concentrated where the coupling turns on, so gravitational-wave tidal measurements could in principle see the effect while the dimensionless relations remain universal.
  • The I-Love-Q relations can keep serving as a general-relativity test for neutron stars without requiring the dark-energy equation of state to be known precisely.
  • The optimal-normalization result, that equation-of-state variability can be reduced by about a factor of two, extends to the dark-energy-augmented equations of state studied here.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that its single-fluid assumption is the fragile part: if physical dark energy does not co-move with baryonic matter, a two-fluid calculation could break the universality, and that calculation is the natural next test.
  • The argument's reliance on the low-pressure outer layers suggests other effective dark-energy fluids, such as $w_0w_a$CDM or entropic dark energy, should also satisfy the relations; that is a testable extension of the paper's reasoning.
  • The oscillations in $\lambda$ for $\beta\neq 0$ above the cutoff density may be numerical artifacts of equation-of-state derivative discontinuities rather than physical; a smoothed or higher-resolution integration would settle this without changing the main claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether the I-Love-Q universal relations survive when a dark-energy fluid is added to the equation of state of neutron stars. It adopts a one-fluid model with total pressure and density P = P_m + P_d and rho = rho_m + rho_d, where rho_d = alpha rho_m exp(-rho_s/rho_m) and either P_d = -rho_d (LambdaCDM) or P_d = beta rho_d^2 (quintessence/phantom). Using the SLy and FPS equations of state, it integrates the TOV and Hartle-Thorne equations, computes the moment of inertia, the quadrupole moment, and the tidal Love number, and compares the dimensionless combinations with the Yagi-Yunes fit. The central claim is that the I-Love-Q relations hold to within about 0.1-1% for these dark-energy-modified EoS, making them even more general and EoS independent.

Significance. If the numerical results are robust, this is a useful extension of the I-Love-Q universality program to a class of two-component EoS and provides a first calculation of these observables for the specific dark-energy model. The comparison with a published fit rather than a fit to the authors' own data is a strength, as is the EoS-variability analysis for alternative normalizations. The main reservations are the unexplained oscillations in the tidal Love number for beta != 0, the absence of numerical details and convergence tests, and the very limited EoS sample; these issues prevent the current version from fully supporting the central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Appendix A3b, Eq. (A34), Fig. 5] The tidal Love number for beta != 0 oscillates once rho_c > rho_s, and the authors attribute this to possible discontinuities in the first derivative of the EoS. Because Eq. (A34) contains d rho_0 / d P_0, the result depends on a controlled interpolation of the combined EoS and its derivative; the manuscript gives no interpolation scheme, ODE solver, radial grid, or convergence test, and no code. The statement that the oscillations are 'not due to the precision of the integration' is therefore not verifiable. Since lambda enters the central I-Love-Q comparison in Figs. 6 and 8, this is a load-bearing gap: if the oscillations are numerical artifacts, or if the true deviations for FPS and beta != 0 exceed the claimed range, the universality claim fails precisely in the regime where the new physics is active.
  2. [Eq. (15)] The dimensionless quadrupole is defined as \bar{Q} = -Q/(M S^2). In geometrized units this combination is not dimensionless; the standard Yagi-Yunes definition is \bar{Q} = -Q M/S^2 = -Q/(M^3 chi^2) with chi = S/M^2. Please correct Eq. (15) and verify that the numerical computation uses the correct normalization, since the entire comparison with the fit in Figs. 6-8 depends on this definition.
  3. [Section III, Figs. 6-8] The claim of ~0.1-1% agreement is not quantified. The range of validity of the Yagi-Yunes fit is never defined, no error bars or convergence indicators are given, and the analysis uses only two EoS with a single value alpha = 0.025 and three values of beta. The authors should specify the mass/lambda range over which the claim holds, report the maximum and mean percentage deviations per curve, and add at least one more EoS and a denser central-density grid to support the phrase 'EoS independent.'
  4. [Section II, Eqs. (8)-(13)] The model combines dark energy and baryonic matter into a single perfect fluid with a common four-velocity. This co-moving, one-fluid assumption is not discussed; if the two components obey separate conservation equations or exchange momentum, the structure equations and hence I, Q, and lambda would differ. The paper should state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, justify it physically for the densities considered.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II] The notation is inconsistent: the bullet says f(rho) is proportional to rho_m, but Eq. (13) defines f(rho_d) = beta rho_d^2; please make the argument of f coherent.
  2. [Eq. (A34)] The term containing d rho_0 / d P_0 appears to have a parenthesis error; please check this equation against the standard Hinderer equation.
  3. [Figure 7] The lower panel is labelled 'Delta I %' while the plot shows the I-Q relation; if the deviation is measured in I, the labelling is acceptable, but please clarify.
  4. [Figure 10 caption] The caption says 'central densities' but the horizontal axis is mass; please correct the wording.
  5. [General] The paper contains no data/code availability statement; for a purely numerical study, making the code and EoS tables available would substantially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: computed I-Love-Q points are compared against an external Yagi-Yunes fit, with no fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's claim is that the I-Love-Q relations remain valid when SLy/FPS equations of state are augmented with the dark-energy fluid of Eqs. (10)-(13). The derivation chain is: input EoS; integrate the TOV equations (A1)-(A3) and Hartle-Thorne equations (A9), (A15)-(A17), (A34); extract I, Q, and lambda from Eqs. (A13), (A30), and (A38); form the dimensionless ratios (14)-(16); and compare them to the Yagi-Yunes fit (17) with coefficients taken from the external reference [20]. No parameter of the target I-Love-Q relation is fitted to the computed points; the fit is an external benchmark, not an output of this paper. The dark-energy model itself is an explicit input assumption, as stated in Sec. II: 'Following [8], we will use an illustrative model of coupling between standard matter and DE of the type rho_d = alpha rho_m exp(-rho_s/rho_m)' (Eq. (10)); this is not derived from the I-Love-Q output and does not presuppose the universality. The reported oscillations of lambda for beta != 0, attributed in Sec. III to 'the fact that the EoS curve has some discontinuities in the first derivative,' are a numerical robustness concern, not a circularity: they do not make the comparison equal to its inputs by construction. There are no self-citations by the single author and no imported uniqueness theorem. Hence no circular step is present.

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

The central claim depends on a phenomenological coupling model with parameters alpha, rho_s, beta chosen by hand (Section II), on the assumption that matter and dark energy form a single perfect fluid (Eqs. 8-13), and on the standard Hartle-Thorne/TOV equations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha = 0.025
    Coupling constant in rho_d = alpha rho_m exp(-rho_s/rho_m); chosen for illustrative calculation (Section III), no observational constraint.
  • rho_s = 5e14 g/cm3
    Density cutoff for the dark energy coupling, chosen to reproduce weak interaction at low densities (Section II).
  • beta = 0, 0.25, 0.5 in units of beta0 = (25e14 g/cm3)^-1
    Parameter of f(rho_d) = beta rho_d^2; varied to represent quintessence-like (positive) and phantom (negative) dark energy.
  • Omega_target = 300 Hz
    Angular velocity for the slow-rotation computation; chosen to satisfy the slow-rotation condition (Section II and Appendix A). Dimensionless I-Love-Q quantities are independent of Omega to leading order.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math General relativity and the Hartle-Thorne slow-rotation expansion up to second order in spin are valid for these stars.
    Used throughout Appendix A; equations A1-A34 are the standard TOV and Hartle-Thorne system from [36,37].
  • domain assumption The baryonic matter and dark energy fluid can be described as a single perfect fluid with total P and rho, sharing a common rest frame and obeying the standard TOV equations.
    Invoked in Section II 'Dark Energy stars', Eqs. (8)-(13). If the two components have separate velocities or exchange energy, the structure equations would differ.
  • domain assumption The tabulated SLy and FPS equations of state accurately describe the baryonic component of the star.
    Taken from [41], used in Section III.
  • domain assumption The phenomenological dark energy coupling rho_d = alpha rho_m exp(-rho_s/rho_m) and the EoS P_d = -rho_d + f(rho_d) represent a physically meaningful dark energy component.
    Adopted from [8] and [38]; parameters are chosen by hand and no observational constraint is used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of I-Love-Q relations for Neutron Stars with Dark Energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2C546AGN

@misc{pith2026250601889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: I-Love-Q relations for Neutron Stars with Dark Energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2C546AGN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01889}
}
read the original abstract

The influence of a dark energy fluid on the equation of state of neutron stars is investigated. A detailed analysis is conducted for such models, including the computation of the moment of inertia, the quadrupole moment, and the tidal Love number. The results demonstrate that these quantities are interconnected through the well-known equation of state independent I-Love-Q relations. This work extends the applicability of these universal relations to a broader class of neutron star models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01889 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Plot of the Mass vs central density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5: Mass vs tidal Love number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. FIG. 9: EoS variability for different normalization choices in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Limiting case of the slow rotating condition for each case of analysis, the chosen angular velocity of the stars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I-Love-Q relations for Neutron Stars with Dark Energy

    Institute of Space Sciences (ICE, CSIC) C. Can Magrans s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain The influence of a dark energy fluid on the equation of state of neutron stars is investigated. A detailed analysis is conducted for such models, including the computation of the moment of inertia, the quadrupole moment, and the tidal Love number. The results demonstrate th...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    The exterior ones can be obtained fixingρ=P= 0

    Zero-order solutions At zero-order in rotation, the Einstein equations and the conservation equation for the metric (1) give the following system of ODEs dm dr = 4πr2ρ0 (A1) dν dr = 8πr3P0 + 2m r(r−2m) (A2) dP0 dr =− (4πr3P0 +m)(ρ 0 +P 0) r(r−2m) .(A3) These are the equations for the interior of the star. The exterior ones can be obtained fixingρ=P= 0. Th...

    work page

  3. [3]

    First-order solutions At first order, we only have the contribution from the rotation of the star. This is given by its angular velocity function ¯ω≡Ω−ω, and its evolution is given by the differential equation d2 ¯ω dr2 + 41−πr 2(ρ0 +P 0) r(1−2m/r) d¯ω dr − 16π(ρ0 +P 0) 1−2m/r ¯ω= 0.(A9) Expanding the equation at smallrwe find the initial conditions to be...

    work page

  4. [4]

    In the rotating case, the deformation of the star is given just by the fact that the NS is spinning with an angular velocity Ω

    Second-order solutions At second order in spin, we studied both the rotating solutions and the tidal one. In the rotating case, the deformation of the star is given just by the fact that the NS is spinning with an angular velocity Ω. In the tidal case, the NS is not spinning and its deformation is generated from an external tidal field, which can be due t...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A6 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Li, X.-D

    M. Li, X.-D. Li, S. Wang, and Y. Wang, Communications in Theoretical Physics56, 525–604 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Bamba, S

    K. Bamba, S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, Astrophysics and Space Science342, 155–228 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Yoo and Y

    J. Yoo and Y. Watanabe, International Journal of Modern Physics D21, 1230002 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Physics Reports505, 59–144 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. Odintsov, and V. Oikonomou, Physics Reports692, 1–104 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    A. V. Astashenok, S. Capozziello, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Lett. B811, 135910 (2020), arXiv:2008.10884 [gr-qc]. 12

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A. V. Astashenok, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Compact stars with dark energy in general relativity and modified gravity (2023), arXiv:2307.14862 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A. V. Astashenok, S. Capozziello, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, EPL134, 59001 (2021), arXiv:2106.01234 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A. V. Astashenok, S. Capozziello, and S. D. Odintsov, JCAP01, 001, arXiv:1408.3856 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. V. Astashenok and S. D. Odintsov, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society498, 3616–3623 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    A. V. Astashenok and S. D. Odintsov, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society493, 78–86 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    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,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters918, L28 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    B. M. N. Carter, Classical and Quantum Gravity22, 4551–4562 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    P. O. Hess, I. Rodr ´ ıguez, W. Greiner, and T. Boller, Journal of Physics: Conference Series578, 012008 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    R. Chan, M. F. A. da Silva, and P. Rocha, General Relativity and Gravitation43, 2223–2235 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    Dymnikova, Gen

    I. Dymnikova, Gen. Rel. Grav.24, 235 (1992)

    1992

  14. [22]

    Panotopoulos, Galaxies13, 10.3390/galaxies13010013 (2025)

    G. Panotopoulos, Galaxies13, 10.3390/galaxies13010013 (2025)

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    J. M. Pretel, S. B. Duarte, J. D. Arba˜ nil, M. Dutra, and O. Louren¸ co, Physical Review D110, 10.1103/physrevd.110.124019 (2024)

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Physical Review D88, 10.1103/physrevd.88.023009 (2013)

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Science341, 365–368 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Physics Reports681, 1–72 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Y.-H. Sham, T. K. Chan, L.-M. Lin, and P. T. Leung, The Astrophysical Journal798, 121 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Pappas and T

    G. Pappas and T. A. Apostolatos, Physical Review Letters112, 10.1103/physrevlett.112.121101 (2014)

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    D. D. Doneva, S. S. Yazadjiev, N. Stergioulas, and K. D. Kokkotas, The Astrophysical Journal781, L6 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    Chakrabarti, T

    S. Chakrabarti, T. Delsate, N. G¨ urlebeck, and J. Steinhoff, Physical Review Letters112, 10.1103/physrevlett.112.201102 (2014)

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    L. C. Stein, K. Yagi, and N. Yunes, The Astrophysical Journal788, 15 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Physical Review D91, 10.1103/physrevd.91.123008 (2015)

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    Haskell, R

    B. Haskell, R. Ciolfi, F. Pannarale, and L. Rezzolla, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters438, L71–L75 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. De Luca, L. Del Grosso, and P. Pani, Physical Review D109, 10.1103/physrevd.109.124008 (2024)

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    Maselli, P

    A. Maselli, P. Pnigouras, N. G. Nielsen, C. Kouvaris, and K. D. Kokkotas, Physical Review D96, 10.1103/phys- revd.96.023005 (2017)

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    J.-Y. Wu, W. Li, X.-H. Huang, and K. Zhang, The European Physical Journal C85, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13862-2 (2025)

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    Pani and E

    P. Pani and E. Berti, Physical Review D90, 10.1103/physrevd.90.024025 (2014)

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    Y. H. Sham, L. M. Lin, and P. T. Leung, Astrophys. J.781, 66 (2014), arXiv:1312.1011 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Collaboration, M

    D. Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C. A. Prieto, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, A. Aviles,et al., Desi dr2 results ii: Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [ast...

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

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

    1967

  33. [41]

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

    1968

  34. [42]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Physical Review D70, 10.1103/physrevd.70.103522 (2004)

    2004 doi

  35. [43]

    ˇStefanˇ ci´ c, Physical Review D71, 10.1103/physrevd.71.084024 (2005)

    H. ˇStefanˇ ci´ c, Physical Review D71, 10.1103/physrevd.71.084024 (2005)

    2005 doi

  36. [44]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and S. Tsujikawa, Physical Review D71, 10.1103/physrevd.71.063004 (2005)

    2005 doi

  37. [45]

    Haensel and A

    P. Haensel and A. Y. Potekhin, Astron. Astrophys.428, 191 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0408324

    2004 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Majumder, K

    B. Majumder, K. Yagi, and N. Yunes, Physical Review D92, 10.1103/physrevd.92.024020 (2015)

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    Urbanec, J

    M. Urbanec, J. C. Miller, and Z. Stuchl ´ ık, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society433, 1903–1909 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    Hinderer, The Astrophysical Journal677, 1216–1220 (2008)

    T. Hinderer, The Astrophysical Journal677, 1216–1220 (2008)

    2008

Pith tools

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