Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The paper argues that a non-uniform, gravitationally bound dark-matter component inside a neutron star shifts the fundamental (f) oscillation mode to higher frequencies and shortens its gravitational-wave damping time, and it converts the G

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 00:09 UTC pith:4UJFZAU6

load-bearing objection First f-mode calculations with the non-uniform Kumar–Sotani DM profile; a useful but provisional extension whose quantitative GW170817 bounds rest on an unvalidated phenomenological density distribution. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.02443 v2 pith:4UJFZAU6 submitted 2025-11-04 nucl-th astro-ph.HEgr-qc

General relativistic study of f-mode oscillations in neutron stars with gravitationally bound dark matter

Pinku Routaray This is my paper
classification nucl-th astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords neutron stardark matterHiggs portalf-mode oscillationquasinormal modestidal deformabilityuniversal relationsgravitational waves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper sets out to show that neutron stars which have captured dark matter into a gravitationally bound, non-uniform distribution ring differently from ordinary neutron stars: their fundamental (f) oscillation mode has a higher frequency and a shorter gravitational-wave damping time, and the effect grows with the amount and concentration of the dark matter. The specific physical input is a Higgs-portal fermionic dark-matter component whose density follows a power law in baryon density, with two free parameters. The paper solves the full general-relativistic perturbation equations, derives universal scaling relations as a function of compactness and tidal deformability, and maps the GW170817 tidal-deformability measurement into a concrete prediction: f1.4 = 2.110^{+0.445}_{-0.445} kHz and τ1.4 = 0.164^{+0.093}_{-0.044} s. A careful reader cares because asteroseismology of neutron stars could then become an independent probe of dark matter confined inside compact stars.

Core claim

For a neutron star built from a relativistic mean-field hadronic equation of state plus a gravitationally captured, non-uniform fermionic dark-matter component, the fundamental quadrupolar oscillation mode has a higher frequency and faster gravitational-wave damping than in the same star without dark matter. The shift is governed by αMχ (abundance times DM particle mass) and a steepness β that concentrates the dark matter toward the core; larger values compress the star, raise f, and shorten τ. Applying the GW170817 tidal-deformability constraint to the universal f–Λ relation yields f1.4 = 2.110^{+0.445}_{-0.445} kHz and τ1.4 = 0.164^{+0.093}_{-0.044} s for a canonical star. The paper also c

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the assumed non-uniform dark-matter density profile n_DM/n0 = α[(n_B - n_t)/n0]^β, a power law that concentrates dark matter toward the core instead of the constant-density profiles used in earlier work. It enters a single-fluid relativistic mean-field equation of state; the resulting stellar models are solved with the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations, and the complex quasinormal-mode frequency ω = 2πf + i/τ is obtained by solving the full perturbed Einstein equations inside the star and matching to an outgoing-wave solution of the wave equation outside. The two free parameters of the profile (αMχ and β) are what carry all the dark-matter effects through the c

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on the assumed power-law dark-matter density profile inside the star (Eq. 2) with free parameters α and β; the paper does not derive this profile from a capture/accumulation calculation or test it against an independent dark-matter model, so any error there moves every quoted frequency and damping-time bound.

What would settle it

Detect the f-mode in a gravitational-wave signal from a 1.4-solar-mass neutron star whose tidal deformability is independently constrained: if the measured frequency lies outside the predicted band around 2.110 ± 0.445 kHz (or the damping time outside 0.164 s), the assumed dark-matter profile or its dynamical effect is wrong.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the inclusion of gravitationally bound dark matter raises f-mode frequencies by up to several hundred hertz and lowers damping times, so a DM-admixed neutron star of given mass has a higher-pitched, faster-damped gravitational-wave ring.
  • The same universal relations between scaled f-mode frequency and compactness/tidal deformability that hold for hadronic stars also hold with a non-uniform dark-matter component, so existing tools for inferring neutron-star properties from gravitational waves do not need to be discarded when dark matter is present.
  • Using the GW170817 tidal-deformability measurement, a canonical 1.4-solar-mass star with this dark-matter component should oscillate at f1.4 = 2.110^{+0.445}_{-0.445} kHz and damp in τ1.4 = 0.164^{+0.093}_{-0.044} s, a target for future detectors.
  • Large dark-matter concentrations (large αMχ and steep β) make stars so compact that they violate measured pulsar mass-radius constraints, so those observations already bound how much gravitationally bound dark matter a neutron star can carry.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the universal relations hold for any dark-matter profile, then a single f-mode measurement cannot distinguish dark-matter effects from a different hadronic equation of state; the two are degenerate until mass, radius, and tidal deformability are all measured independently.
  • A natural next step would be to replace the assumed power-law dark-matter profile with one derived from a capture/relaxation calculation or a two-fluid simulation; differences in the profile would directly test how much of the 2.11 kHz prediction is model-dependent.
  • The fact that αMχ acts as a single effective control parameter suggests that dark-matter mass and abundance cannot be separately constrained by asteroseismology alone; joint observations, such as direct-detection or collider limits on the Higgs-portal coupling, would be needed to break that degeneracy.
  • Sensitivity forecasts for next-generation gravitational-wave observatories could tell whether the predicted shift of several hundred hertz is resolvable, turning DM-admixed f-modes into a concrete search target.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies nonradial f-mode oscillations of neutron stars containing gravitationally bound Higgs-portal dark matter in a single-fluid relativistic mean-field framework. It adopts a non-uniform DM density distribution (Eq. 2) parameterized by alpha and beta, solves the TOV equations and the full general-relativistic perturbation equations (Lindblom-Detweiler interior matched to a Zerilli exterior), computes complex QNM frequencies and damping times, constructs universal relations against compactness and tidal deformability, and maps the GW170817 Lambda_1.4 constraint into (f_1.4, tau_1.4) space. The central claims are that the presence of DM shifts the f-mode frequency upward and shortens the damping time relative to pure hadronic stars, and that the resulting universal relations remain robust, yielding f_1.4 = 2.110^{+0.445}_{-0.445} kHz and tau_1.4 = 0.164^{+0.093}_{-0.044} s.

Significance. If the adopted DM profile is physically representative, the paper gives a useful extension of NS asteroseismology to DM-admixed stars. Its strengths are the use of full general relativity rather than the Cowling approximation, a multi-EOS calibration for the universal relations, explicit fit coefficients and residual plots, and a concrete multimessenger mapping that can be compared with future GW observations. The work is a step beyond the uniform-DM-density assumption used in many earlier studies. However, the quantitative conclusions are conditional on the assumed DM profile, and the manuscript contains several internal inconsistencies and missing definitions that must be addressed before the results can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (2)] The DM profile is written as n_DM/n0 = alpha[(n_B - n_t)/n0]^beta. Since n_B drops below the core-crust transition density n_t in the outer layers, this expression is negative for odd beta and nonzero for even beta at the surface. The paper does not restrict the formula to n_B >= n_t or define the DM density in the crust. This directly affects the EOS used in the TOV integration and therefore all QNM results. Please specify the domain of Eq. (2) and, if the profile is intended only for the core, describe the matching/crust treatment.
  2. [Sec. II.A, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The DM energy density and pressure depend on the Higgs field value h0 and on M_chi* = M_chi - y h0, but h0 is never defined or computed. Without either an explicit equation for h0 (e.g., the mean-field minimum of the Higgs potential) or a stated numerical value, the DM EOS is not reproducible. Please provide the missing relation or state clearly how h0 is determined.
  3. [Sec. III.C, Eq. (11) and Table I] The text reports a_r = 0.686 kHz and b_r = 40.535 kHz km for the f-mode density scaling relation, whereas Table I lists a_r = 0.636 kHz and b_r = 44.038 kHz km. These coefficients are used in the universal-relation analysis and in the subsequent GW170817 mapping, so the inconsistency is load-bearing. Please correct the discrepancy and verify all coefficients in Tables I-IV.
  4. [Sec. III.C.2, Fig. 12] The quoted bounds f_1.4 = 2.110^{+0.445}_{-0.445} kHz and tau_1.4 = 0.164^{+0.093}_{-0.044} s are obtained by feeding the observed Lambda_1.4 through a fit calibrated on the same DM-admixed models. This is not circular, but the mapping inherits the uncertainty of the assumed profile in Eq. (2). The paper neither derives the profile from a capture/relaxation calculation nor tests it against independent profile models (e.g., uniform-density or two-fluid capture profiles). The bounds should therefore be presented as conditional on the ansatz, and ideally the sensitivity of the URs to profile variations should be quantified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Figs. 5-7] The horizontal axes labeled alpha M_chi run from -4 to 0, which strongly suggests a logarithmic scale. If so, the axis labels should be log10(alpha M_chi/GeV) or similar.
  2. [Sec. III.C, Tables I-II] No uncertainties are given for the best-fit coefficients a_r, b_r, a_i, b_i. Since these fits are used to derive observational bounds, reporting the fit uncertainties (or at least the residuals used elsewhere) would improve the quantitative assessment.
  3. [Sec. II.A] There is a typo in the sentence describing Ref. [63]: 'the author considers the density distribution in the NS uniform, rather than it peaks at the core...' presumably should read 'non-uniform.'
  4. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (1)] The values of y = 0.06 and f M_n/nu = 1.145 x 10^-3 are stated without discussion. A brief justification or citation for these choices would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the DM-admixed QNM calculations and GW170817-based bounds are outputs of a stated EOS/GR pipeline; the unvalidated DM profile is a modeling caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The DM-admixed EOS is constructed from a specified Lagrangian and an assumed DM density profile (Eq. 2); the TOV equations then produce the M-R relation and tidal deformability; the f-mode frequency and damping time are obtained by solving the standard relativistic perturbation equations in Appendix B. The universal relations in Eqs. (11)-(15) are least-squares fits to those computed data, and the GW170817 bounds (f1.4 = 2.110^{+0.445}_{-0.445} kHz, tau1.4 = 0.164^{+0.093}_{-0.044} s) are obtained by evaluating the fitted omega-bar-Lambda relation at the externally measured Lambda1.4 = 190^{+390}_{-120}. That is calibration followed by prediction, not fitting the target quantity to the data. The DM profile is adopted from Kumar & Sotani [63] and its parameters are scanned rather than derived; this makes the quantitative predictions model-dependent (a correctness/validation caveat), but does not make the outputs equal to the inputs by construction. The self-citations (e.g., NITR-I EOS [46]) are background or one of several input EOSs, and they are not load-bearing for the central QNM or universal-relation claims. The internal discrepancy between the text values (ar = 0.686, br = 40.535) and Table I values (ar = 0.636, br = 44.038) is an apparent numerical inconsistency, not a circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central computation rests on an assumed DM density profile (Eq. 2) with two free parameters (α, β), fixed Higgs-portal couplings, standard RMF hadronic EOSs, and standard GR perturbation theory. No new entities are introduced; the DM candidate is a known neutralino.

free parameters (4)
  • αMχ (or α and Mχ separately) = scanned over ~0.01–0.8 GeV in different figures
    Effective control parameter combining DM scaling factor α and DM mass Mχ. The paper shows M–R curves are identical for fixed αMχ, so it treats this combination as the free parameter. Varied by hand to explore DM effects.
  • β = 1, 2, 4
    Steepness index in the DM density profile (Eq. 2). Fixed to three values across the paper.
  • y (DM-Higgs coupling) = 0.06
    Coupling between DM fermion and Higgs field in Eq. (1). Set to 0.06, not fitted to data in this paper, but a free model constant.
  • f Mn/ν (effective Yukawa coupling) = 1.145e-3
    Effective Yukawa coupling between Higgs and nucleon in Eq. (1). Maintained at this value; a free model constant.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The DM density profile n_DM/n0 = α[(n_B - n_t)/n0]^β (Eq. 2) describes the gravitationally captured DM distribution inside the NS.
    Assumed profile with two free parameters; not derived from a capture/equilibrium calculation. All results depend on it.
  • domain assumption Single-fluid approximation: the total EOS is E = E_NS + E_DM, P = P_NS + P_DM, with DM and baryons in joint hydrostatic equilibrium.
    Used in Eq. (5) and throughout; ignores relative flows or separate temperatures.
  • domain assumption The DM candidate is a non-annihilating neutralino coupled via the Higgs portal with fixed couplings.
    Chosen from prior literature [38,45,61]; the paper does not derive these couplings.
  • domain assumption The hadronic EOS is described by RMF models (Hornick1–4, QMC-RMF4, NITR-I) with BPS crust.
    Standard EOS set; parameters in Appendix A, Table V.
  • standard math The Lindblom–Detweiler/Zerilli perturbation formalism correctly yields complex QNM frequencies for these backgrounds.
    Standard GR perturbation theory; the paper reproduces equations from the literature but does not prove them.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22647 in / 17804 out tokens · 164145 ms · 2026-08-04T00:09:12.889084+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of General relativistic study of $f$-mode oscillations in neutron stars with gravitationally bound dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4UJFZAU6

@misc{pith2026251102443,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: General relativistic study of $f$-mode oscillations in neutron stars with gravitationally bound dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4UJFZAU6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.02443}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

A comprehensive investigation of nonradial oscillations in neutron star (NS) admixed with gravitationally bounded dark matter (DM) is carried out within the framework of full general relativity. The relativistic mean field (RMF) formalism is employed to illustrate the hadronic equation of state (EOS), while a physically motivated, gravitationally captured, non-uniform fermionic Higgs-portal DM component is incorporated to model DM-admixed NS. The DM distribution is characterized by two free parameters: $\alpha M_\chi$, an effective control parameter that combines the DM concentration and the DM candidate mass, and $\beta$, a steepness parameter controlling the DM density distribution. The quasi normal mode (QNM) characteristics such as fundamental ($f$) mode frequency and its corresponding gravitational-wave (GW) damping time ($\tau$) is calculated for DM-admixed NS by solving the general relativistic perturbed equations involving axial as well as polar modes. The study demonstrates how the inclusion of DM distribution modifies the $f$-mode frequency and enhances the damping rate, reflecting a stronger coupling between matter and spacetime perturbations. Considering DM effects, the correlation analysis among DM model parameters, NS observables and QNM characteristics also carried out. Analytic fits for the $f-C-\tau$ and $f-\Lambda -\tau$ relations are constructed and calibrated for DM-admixed NS models. Building upon asteroseismic universal relations (URs), multimessenger constraint from the GW170817 event is employed by mapping the tidal deformability $\Lambda_{1.4}$ into the $(f_{1.4},\tau_{1.4})$ space, thereby providing observational bounds on the oscillation properties of canonical DM-admixed NS model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.02443 by Pinku Routaray.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The mass-radius relation of DM-admixed NS is shown. Different choices of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The maximum DM mass fraction is plotted with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Panel (a): The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Panel (a): The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The heatmap represents the correlation matrix encompassing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Variation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Variation of scaled damping time with compactness ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The UR between the scaled QNM frequency and stellar compactness is shown. The black dashed curve represents the least-squares [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The UR between the scaled QNM frequency and the dimensionless tidal deformability. The black dashed curve shows the least [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Observables and conformal properties of dark matter admixed isentropic neutron stars

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    DM admixture in isentropic neutron stars can mimic quark-matter conformality signatures via competition between thermal effects and dark sector softening.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    In this section, a correlation study among the NS observables, DM param- eters, andf-mode characteristics is performed

    Correlation Study In the previous sections, the influence of DM on various NS observables and QNMs has been analyzed. In this section, a correlation study among the NS observables, DM param- eters, andf-mode characteristics is performed. For the NS properties, both canonical (R 1.4,Λ 1.4) and maximum-mass configurations (M max,R max,Λ max) are considered....

    1998

  2. [2]

    Perturbations outside the star and complex eigenfrequencies The Zerilli equation determines the perturbations outside the star[94]. d2Z dr2∗ +ω 2Z=V ZZ(B12) Herer ∗ =r+ 2Mlog r 2M −1 represents the tortoise co- ordinate andV Z which can be written as [94], VZ = 2 (r−2M) r4 (nr+ 3M) 2 h n2(n+ 1)r 3 + 3n 2M r2 + 9nM2r+ 9M 3 i ,(B13) wheren= 1 2 (l+ 2)(l−1)....

  3. [3]

    Lattimer, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 71, 433 (2021)

    J. Lattimer, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 71, 433 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, et al., APJL887, L24 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, et al., APJL887, L21 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    1.814−1.341−2.505 7.736−8.070 2.038−− −− This work1.810−1.194−2.713 8.729−9.300−1.553 1.016−0.557 Ref.a ′ 0 a′ 1 10−1 a′ 2 10−1 a′ 3 10−1 a′ 4 10−3 a′ 5 10−5 a′ 6 10−4 a′ 7 10−5 Sotaniet al.(2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    −4.334 4.589−2.795 0.364−2.518 6.257−− −− This work−4.391 6.373−4.848 1.532−39.315 662.212−6.232 2.465 asαM χandf χ,max increase, thef-mode frequency rises while the damping time decreases. A similar behavior is ob- served when examining the canonicalf-mode frequency and damping time as functions of the effective control parame- ter and central energy den...

  8. [8]

    Perturbation within the star The fundamental equations required to determine the com- plex QNM frequencies are outlined below. We can write the perturbed metric (ds2 p) as follows [66], ds2 p =ds 2 +h µνdxµdxν .(B1) Based on the formulation of Thorne and Campolattaro [66], we consider the even-parity (polar) perturbations, wherein the GW and matter pertur...

  9. [9]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, et al. (The LIGO Sci- entific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, The Astrophysical Journal 550, 426 (2001)

    2001

  11. [11]

    J. M. Lattimer, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 62, 485 (2012)

    2012

  12. [12]

    V . B. Thapa and M. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D102, 123007 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    F. Ma, W. Guo, and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. C105, 015807 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    Schaffner and I

    J. Schaffner and I. N. Mishustin, Phys. Rev. C53, 1416 (1996)

    1996

  15. [15]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, et al., APJL918, L28 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, et al., APJL 918, L27 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, et al. (The LIGO Scien- tific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  18. [18]

    Weber, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 25, R195 (1999)

    F. Weber, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 25, R195 (1999)

    1999

  19. [19]

    N. K. Glendenning and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4564 (1998)

    1998

  20. [20]

    G. E. Brown, C.-H. Lee, H.-J. Park, and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 062303 (2006)

    2006

  21. [21]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. N ¨attil¨a, and A. Vuorinen, Nature Physics16, 907–910 (2020)

    2020

  22. [22]

    Ferreira, R

    M. Ferreira, R. C. Pereira, and C. m. c. Providˆencia, Phys. Rev. D101, 123030 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    McLerran and S

    L. McLerran and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 122701 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    Weissenborn, D

    S. Weissenborn, D. Chatterjee, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. C85, 065802 (2012)

    2012

  25. [25]

    L., Bejger, M., and Ma´nka, R., A&A543, A157 (2012)

    Bednarek, I., Haensel, P., Zdunik, J. L., Bejger, M., and Ma´nka, R., A&A543, A157 (2012)

    2012

  26. [26]

    L., Haensel, P., and Bejger, M., A&A 576, A68 (2015)

    Fortin, M., Zdunik, J. L., Haensel, P., and Bejger, M., A&A 576, A68 (2015)

    2015

  27. [27]

    Massey, T

    R. Massey, T. Kitching, and J. Richard, Reports on Progress in Physics73, 086901 (2010)

    2010

  28. [28]

    Orsaria, H

    M. Orsaria, H. Rodrigues, F. Weber, and G. A. Contrera, Phys. Rev. C89, 015806 (2014)

    2014

  29. [29]

    G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y . Song, and T. Takatsuka, Reports on Progress in Physics81, 056902 (2018)

    2018

  30. [30]

    de Lavallaz and M

    A. de Lavallaz and M. Fairbairn, Phys. Rev. D81, 123521 (2010)

    2010

  31. [31]

    Kouvaris and P

    C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D82, 063531 (2010)

    2010

  32. [32]

    Ciarcelluti and F

    P. Ciarcelluti and F. Sandin, Physics Letters B695, 19–21 (2011)

    2011

  33. [33]

    Zhao and J

    T. Zhao and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D102, 023021 (2020)

    2020

  34. [34]

    Cao, Phys

    G. Cao, Phys. Rev. D105, 114020 (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Physics Reports405, 279 (2005)

    2005

  36. [36]

    Bramante, T

    J. Bramante, T. Linden, and Y .-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D97, 055016 (2018)

    2018

  37. [37]

    Hu and S

    W. Hu and S. Dodelson, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics40, 171 (2002)

    2002

  38. [38]

    K. G. Begeman, A. H. Broeils, and R. H. Sanders, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 249, 523 (1991), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/249/3/523/18160929/mnras249-0523.pdf

    1991

  39. [39]

    Ellis, G

    J. Ellis, G. H ¨utsi, K. Kannike, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, and V . Vaskonen, Physical Review D97, 123007 (2018)

    2018

  40. [40]

    A. E. Nelson, S. Reddy, and D. Zhou, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019(07), 012

  41. [41]

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

    2021

  42. [42]

    Goldman, R

    I. Goldman, R. Mohapatra, S. Nussinov, D. Rosenbaum, and V . Teplitz, Physics Letters B725, 200–207 (2013)

    2013

  43. [43]

    G ¨uver, A

    T. G ¨uver, A. E. Erkoca, M. H. Reno, and I. Sarcevic, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2014(05), 013

  44. [44]

    Ellis, A

    J. Ellis, A. Hektor, G. H ¨utsi, K. Kannike, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, and V . Vaskonen, Physics Letters B781, 607 (2018)

    2018

  45. [45]

    Routaray, H

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

    2023

  46. [46]

    Narain, J

    G. Narain, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and I. N. Mishustin, Phys. Rev. D74, 063003 (2006)

    2006

  47. [47]

    Panotopoulos and I

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

    2017

  48. [48]

    Shirke, B

    S. Shirke, B. K. Pradhan, D. Chatterjee, L. Sagunski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D110, 063025 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Routaray, H

    P. Routaray, H. Das, J. A. Pattnaik, and B. Kumar, Inter- national Journal of Modern Physics E33, 2450052 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218301324500526

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218301324500526 2024

  50. [50]

    Routaray, V

    P. Routaray, V . Parmar, H. C. Das, B. Kumar, G. F. Burgio, and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. D111, 103045 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    A. Das, T. Malik, and A. C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. D105, 123034 (2022)

    2022

  52. [53]

    Giangrandi, V

    E. Giangrandi, V . Sagun, O. Ivanytskyi, C. Provid ˆencia, and T. Dietrich, The Astrophysical Journal953, 115 (2023)

    2023

  53. [54]

    Z. Miao, Y . Zhu, A. Li, and F. Huang, Astrophys. J.936, 69 (2022)

    2022

  54. [55]

    Routaray, S

    P. Routaray, S. R. Mohanty, H. Das, S. Ghosh, P. Kalita, V . Par- mar, and B. Kumar, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023(10), 073

  55. [56]

    Routaray, A

    P. Routaray, A. Quddus, K. Chakravarti, and B. Ku- mar, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 525, 5492 (2023), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/525/4/5492/51554155/stad2628.pdf

    2023

  56. [57]

    Rutherford, G

    N. Rutherford, G. Raaijmakers, C. Prescod-Weinstein, and A. Watts, Phys. Rev. D107, 103051 (2023)

    2023

  57. [58]

    R. F. Diedrichs, N. Becker, C. Jockel, J.-E. Christian, L. Sa- gunski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D108, 064009 16 (2023)

    2023

  58. [59]

    Shakeri and D

    S. Shakeri and D. R. Karkevandi, Phys. Rev. D109, 043029 (2024)

    2024

  59. [60]

    Routaray, A

    P. Routaray, A. Chakrawarty, N. Patra, and B. Kumar, Physics of the Dark Universe50, 102093 (2025)

    2025

  60. [61]

    Ivanytskyi, V

    O. Ivanytskyi, V . Sagun, and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D102, 063028 (2020)

    2020

  61. [62]

    Leung, M.-C

    K.-L. Leung, M.-C. Chu, and L.-M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D105, 123010 (2022)

    2022

  62. [63]

    Kumar and H

    A. Kumar and H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D111, 043016 (2025)

    2025

  63. [64]

    Rafiei Karkevandi, S

    D. Rafiei Karkevandi, S. Shakeri, V . Sagun, and O. Ivanytskyi, Phys. Rev. D105, 023001 (2022)

    2022

  64. [65]

    Mariani, C

    M. Mariani, C. Albertus, M. del Rosario Alessandroni, M. G. Orsaria, M. A. Perez-Garcia, and I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527, 6795 (2024), arXiv:2311.14004 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [66]

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

    1967

  66. [67]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Reviews in Rela- tivity2, 10.12942/lrr-1999-2 (1999)

    doi:10.12942/lrr-1999-2 1999

  67. [68]

    Yoshida and Y

    S. Yoshida and Y . Kojima, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society289, 117 (1997), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/289/1/117/18199806/289-1-117.pdf

    1997

  68. [69]

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

    2019

  69. [70]

    Quddus, G

    A. Quddus, G. Panotopoulos, B. Kumar, S. Ahmad, and S. K. Patra, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics47, 095202 (2020)

    2020

  70. [71]

    Sen and A

    D. Sen and A. Guha, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society504, 3354 (2021), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/504/3/3354/37875440/stab1056.pdf

    2021

  71. [72]

    Wen, B.-A

    D.-H. Wen, B.-A. Li, H.-Y . Chen, and N.-B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C99, 045806 (2019)

    2019

  72. [73]

    C. V . Flores, C. H. Lenzi, M. Dutra, O. Lourenc ¸o, and J. D. V . Arba˜nil, Phys. Rev. D109, 083021 (2024)

    2024

  73. [74]

    1.817−1.532−2.176 4.971 4.812−31.040 4.230−1.971 Bikramet al.(2022)

    2022

  74. [75]

    Left and right panels display the real and imaginary parts of the QNM frequency, respectively

    are also included for comparison. Left and right panels display the real and imaginary parts of the QNM frequency, respectively. The observational bounds on tidal deformability from the multimessenger event GW170817 [9] are imposed to constrain thef-mode frequency and damping time for the canonical NS model. τ1.4 = 0.164+0.093 −0.044 s, respectively. IV ....

    2014

  75. [76]

    T. G. Cowling, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society101, 367 (1941), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/101/8/367/8071901/mnras101-0367.pdf

    1941

  76. [77]

    S. R. Mohanty, S. Ghosh, P. Routaray, H. Das, and B. Kumar, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024(03), 054

  77. [78]

    Sotani, N

    H. Sotani, N. Yasutake, T. Maruyama, and T. Tatsumi, Phys. Rev. D83, 024014 (2011)

    2011

  78. [79]

    V ´asquez Flores and G

    C. V ´asquez Flores and G. Lugones, Classical and Quantum Gravity31, 155002 (2014)

    2014

  79. [80]

    I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, O. M. Guilera, M. Mariani, and M. G. Orsaria, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2018 (12), 031

  80. [81]

    D. Dey, J. A. Pattnaik, M. Bhuyan, R. Panda, and S. Patra, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(08), 003

Showing first 80 references.