pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19446 · v1 · pith:RRMCP6YXnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE· hep-th

Dynamical Tidal Response of Neutron Stars: from Effective Field Theory to Gravitational Waveforms

Thomas Apostolidis , Valerio De Luca , Leonardo Gualtieri , Takuya Katagiri , Paolo Pani , Luca Santoni This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 19:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th
keywords dynamical tidesneutron starsgravitational waveseffective field theoryLove numberstidal deformabilitypost-Newtonian expansionEinstein Telescope
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dynamical tidal deformations of neutron stars contribute measurably to late-inspiral gravitational-wave signals.

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

The paper shows that matching worldline effective field theory to relativistic stellar perturbation theory yields the complete leading-order dynamical tidal response of neutron stars up to second order in frequency, including a universal logarithmic running term and scheme-dependent finite pieces. These dynamical Love numbers are enhanced at low compactness and cannot be reduced to mode excitations alone. Although formally entering at eighth post-Newtonian order, they produce non-negligible phase shifts during the late inspiral. A Fisher-matrix study indicates that third-generation detectors can extract them for a range of masses and equations of state. Omitting them introduces significant biases when inferring static Love numbers and the underlying nuclear equation of state.

Core claim

Combining worldline effective field theory with relativistic stellar perturbation theory in dimensional regularization produces the full leading-order dynamical tidal corrections to both the conservative dynamics and the gravitational-wave phase of compact binaries. The resulting dynamical Love numbers, which include scheme-dependent finite terms in addition to the running, are significantly larger than their static counterparts for small compactness. Mode excitations alone do not capture the complete relativistic dynamical effects, whose magnitude depends on compactness, the equation of state, and the running term. These corrections remain observationally relevant in the late inspiral despi

What carries the argument

The consistent matching procedure between worldline effective field theory and relativistic stellar perturbation theory that isolates the complete leading-order dynamical tidal corrections including scheme-dependent finite terms.

If this is right

  • Dynamical tidal effects cannot be fully captured by mode excitations in the relativistic regime.
  • The size of the dynamical corrections depends on stellar compactness, the equation of state, and the running term.
  • Third-generation detectors can measure dynamical Love numbers across a range of neutron-star masses and equations of state.
  • Neglecting dynamical tides produces significant biases in the inferred static Love numbers and therefore in the nuclear equation of state.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The enhancement at low compactness suggests dynamical signatures may be strongest for lower-mass neutron stars.
  • The presence of scheme-dependent finite terms underscores the need for consistent regularization choices when comparing effective-theory predictions to numerical waveforms.
  • The same matching framework could be applied to other compact objects to test whether similar dynamical corrections appear.

Load-bearing premise

The consistent matching procedure between the worldline EFT and relativistic stellar perturbation theory that isolates the complete leading-order dynamical corrections, including scheme-dependent finite terms, is valid and free of uncontrolled higher-order contributions.

What would settle it

A mismatch between observed late-inspiral gravitational-wave phases from neutron-star binaries and waveforms computed with only static tides, resolved when the predicted dynamical corrections are restored.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19446 by Leonardo Gualtieri, Luca Santoni, Paolo Pani, Takuya Katagiri, Thomas Apostolidis, Valerio De Luca.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Mass-radius relations for neutron stars with sev [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Left: The static TLNs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Estimated evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Top: Approximate universal relations between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Absolute contributions to the tidal phase as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The reason is that the mismatch is sensitive to the total dephasing accumulated across the inspiral band, and can flag a systematic bias even when the corresponding parameter uncertainty is large. In practice this means that, for ET sources at dL ∼ 100 Mpc (SNR ≳ 100), omit￾ting the dynamical tidal phase will bias the inference of the static Love number—and hence the extracted nuclear EoS—even in regimes w… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Mismatch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the fully relativistic dynamical tidal response of neutron stars up to second order in the frequency. Combining the worldline effective field theory for extended gravitating bodies with perturbation theory of relativistic stellar models, we derive the tidal deformation induced by an external time-dependent field, including a universal logarithmic running term. In the effective theory, we work in dimensional regularization and, through a consistent matching procedure, obtain for the first time the complete leading-order dynamical tidal corrections to both the conservative dynamics and the gravitational-wave signal of compact binaries, including the scheme-dependent finite terms in addition to the running. We show that, in the relativistic regime, dynamical effects cannot be fully captured by mode excitations alone. The magnitude of the additional contribution depends on the stellar compactness, the equation of state, and the running term. Dynamical Love numbers are significantly enhanced with respect to their static counterparts for relatively small compactness. As a result, although they formally enter the gravitational-wave phase at 8th post-Newtonian order, dynamical tidal effects yield a non-negligible contribution during the late inspiral. Using a Fisher-matrix analysis, we show that third-generation detectors such as the Einstein Telescope could measure dynamical Love numbers for a range of neutron-star masses and equations of state. Conversely, neglecting these effects can lead to significant biases in the inference of static Love numbers, and hence on the nuclear equation of state. Our results highlight the importance of dynamical tidal effects for high-precision gravitational-wave modeling with future detectors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the fully relativistic dynamical tidal response of neutron stars up to second order in the frequency. By combining the worldline effective field theory for extended gravitating bodies with perturbation theory of relativistic stellar models, the authors derive the tidal deformation induced by an external time-dependent field, including a universal logarithmic running term. Through a consistent matching procedure in dimensional regularization, they obtain the complete leading-order dynamical tidal corrections to both the conservative dynamics and the gravitational-wave signal, including scheme-dependent finite terms. They demonstrate that dynamical effects cannot be fully captured by mode excitations alone in the relativistic regime, with the magnitude depending on compactness, equation of state, and the running term. Dynamical Love numbers are significantly enhanced for relatively small compactness, yielding non-negligible contributions during the late inspiral despite entering at 8th post-Newtonian order. A Fisher-matrix analysis indicates that third-generation detectors like the Einstein Telescope could measure these dynamical Love numbers, while neglecting them leads to biases in static Love-number inference and thus the nuclear equation of state.

Significance. If the matching procedure is shown to be robust, this work would be significant for high-precision gravitational-wave modeling with future detectors such as the Einstein Telescope. The explicit derivation of complete leading-order dynamical corrections (including finite terms beyond mode excitations) and the demonstration of their non-negligible impact on the late inspiral and potential biases in equation-of-state inference are notable strengths. The combination of EFT and stellar perturbation theory provides a systematic framework that could improve waveform templates.

major comments (1)
  1. [Matching procedure (as described in the derivation of dynamical corrections)] The central claim that dynamical Love numbers yield non-negligible contributions and are measurable by ET (with biases if neglected) rests on the matching procedure isolating the complete LO dynamical corrections, including all scheme-dependent finite terms and without O(ω³) leakage. The manuscript asserts this is achieved 'for the first time' via consistent matching between the worldline EFT and relativistic stellar models, but does not explicitly verify that the tidal response functions capture all compactness- and EOS-dependent finite pieces or exclude higher-order relativistic corrections. This is load-bearing for the Fisher-matrix projections and the 'significantly enhanced' magnitude claim for small compactness.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the recognition of the work's potential significance for high-precision gravitational-wave modeling. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Matching procedure (as described in the derivation of dynamical corrections)] The central claim that dynamical Love numbers yield non-negligible contributions and are measurable by ET (with biases if neglected) rests on the matching procedure isolating the complete LO dynamical corrections, including all scheme-dependent finite terms and without O(ω³) leakage. The manuscript asserts this is achieved 'for the first time' via consistent matching between the worldline EFT and relativistic stellar models, but does not explicitly verify that the tidal response functions capture all compactness- and EOS-dependent finite pieces or exclude higher-order relativistic corrections. This is load-bearing for the Fisher-matrix projections and the 'significantly enhanced' magnitude claim for small compactness.

    Authors: We thank the referee for emphasizing the need to clearly establish the robustness of the matching. Sections III and IV detail the procedure: the relativistic stellar perturbation equations are solved for the tidal response up to O(ω²) for specified compactness and EOS, directly yielding the full response functions that include all compactness- and EOS-dependent finite contributions. These are matched to the worldline EFT coefficients in dimensional regularization, separating the universal running from the scheme-dependent finite terms. By construction, the truncation at second order in frequency excludes O(ω³) leakage, and higher-order relativistic or post-Newtonian corrections lie beyond the leading-order scope. The stellar-model solutions ensure completeness of the finite pieces at this order. To make this verification more explicit, we will add a clarifying paragraph in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: matching uses external stellar models; central results not forced by self-inputs

full rationale

The derivation proceeds by combining worldline EFT with independent relativistic stellar perturbation theory via a matching procedure that draws on external stellar models. No quoted step reduces a claimed prediction or dynamical correction to a quantity fitted inside the same calculation, nor does any load-bearing premise rest on a self-citation chain that itself lacks independent verification. The abstract and described procedure treat the stellar models as external inputs, and the subsequent Fisher-matrix projections follow from those matched quantities without re-using the same data as both input and output. This is the normal non-circular case.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard domain assumptions of worldline EFT and relativistic stellar perturbation theory; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Worldline effective field theory for extended gravitating bodies
    Framework used to derive the tidal deformation induced by an external time-dependent field.
  • domain assumption Perturbation theory of relativistic stellar models
    Combined with EFT to compute the response up to second order in frequency.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5822 in / 1242 out tokens · 34675 ms · 2026-06-26T19:54:04.451913+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    near zone

    Gravito-electric one-point function On the EFT side, we work in the de Donder gauge, defined by ∂µhµν= 1 2∂νh,(A9) withh≡hµµ. Hereafter,hµνdenotes the canonically normalized graviton field, defined viagµν=ηµν+2hµν/M(D−2)/2 Pl in D spacetime dimensions. Indices are raised and lowered using the Minkowski metricηµν. In this gauge, the linearized equations of...

  2. [2]

    near zone

    Including gravitational nonlinearities The solution(A17) was obtained from a tree-level calculation in the EFT and captures the leading-r behavior of theE field. To match it to the full relativistic solution, however, we must include the coupling to gravity, which generates subleading terms. For this purpose, we closely follow the procedure described in R...

  3. [3]

    J. M. Lattimer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 433 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

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

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Baiotti, Prog

    L. Baiotti, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.109, 103714 (2019), arXiv:1907.08534 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Chatziioannou, Gen

    K. Chatziioannou, Gen. Rel. Grav.52, 109 (2020), arXiv:2006.03168 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Poisson and C

    E. Poisson and C. M. Will,Gravity: Newtonian, Post- Newtonian, Relativistic(Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    2014

  8. [8]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  9. [9]

    E.Flanagan andT

    E. E.Flanagan andT. Hinderer,Phys. Rev.D77,021502 (2008), arXiv:0709.1915 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  10. [10]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D80, 084035 (2009), arXiv:0906.0096 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    Binnington and E

    T. Binnington and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev.D80, 084018 (2009), arXiv:0906.1366 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    Hinderer, B

    T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang, and J. S. Read, Phys. Rev. D81, 123016 (2010), arXiv:0911.3535 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  13. [13]

    Vines, E

    J. Vines, E. E. Flanagan, and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D83, 084051 (2011), arXiv:1101.1673 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  14. [14]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    Chakraborty and P

    S. Chakraborty and P. Pani, (2026), arXiv:2604.08679 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    M. J. Rodríguez, L. Santoni, and A. R. Solomon, (2026), arXiv:2604.08653 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Lai, Mon

    D. Lai, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.270, 611 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9404062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  18. [18]

    Lai, Astrophys

    D. Lai, Astrophys. J.490, 847 (1997), arXiv:astro- ph/9704132

    arXiv 1997

  19. [19]

    W. C. G. Ho and D. Lai, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 308, 153 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812116

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  20. [20]

    Chakrabarti, T

    S. Chakrabarti, T. Delsate, and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. D88, 084038 (2013), arXiv:1306.5820 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Andersson and P

    N. Andersson and P. Pnigouras, Phys. Rev. D101, 083001 (2020), arXiv:1906.08982 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Andersson and P

    N. Andersson and P. Pnigouras, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.503, 533 (2021), arXiv:1905.00012 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Passamonti, N

    A. Passamonti, N. Andersson, and P. Pnigouras, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.504, 1273 (2021), arXiv:2012.09637 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Passamonti, N

    A. Passamonti, N. Andersson, and P. Pnigouras, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.514, 1494 (2022), arXiv:2202.05161 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Pnigouras, F

    P. Pnigouras, F. Gittins, A. Nanda, N. Andersson, and D. I. Jones, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527, 8409 (2024), arXiv:2205.07577 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    H. Yu, P. Arras, and N. N. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024039 (2024), arXiv:2404.00147 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Pnigouras, N

    P. Pnigouras, N. Andersson, F. Gittins, and A. R. Coun- sell, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.542, 1375 (2025), arXiv:2508.06416 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Pitre and E

    T. Pitre and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D109, 064004 (2024), arXiv:2311.04075 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Hegade K

    A. Hegade K. R., J. L. Ripley, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D109, 104064 (2024), arXiv:2403.03254 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Hegade K

    A. Hegade K. R., K. J. Kwon, T. Venumadhav, H. Yu, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 071401 (2026), arXiv:2507.10693 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Hegade K

    A. Hegade K. R., Y. Yang, M. Hippert, J. Noronha- Hostler, J. Noronha, and N. Yunes, (2026), arXiv:2603.26886 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Counsell, F

    R. Counsell, F. Gittins, N. Andersson, and P. Pnigouras, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.536, 1967 (2024), arXiv:2409.20178 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 1967

  33. [33]

    J. A. Saes, A. Hegade K. R., and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D113, 104045 (2026), arXiv:2511.19626 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Hegade K

    A. Hegade K. R., K. J. Kwon, T. Venumadhav, H. Yu, and N. Yunes, (2026), arXiv:2605.08569 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D73, 104029 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0409156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  36. [36]

    W. D. Goldberger, inLes Houches Summer School - Session 86: Particle Physics and Cosmology: The Fabric of Spacetime(2007) arXiv:hep-ph/0701129

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  37. [37]

    R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D73, 104031 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0511061

    arXiv 2006

  38. [38]

    Chakrabarti, T

    S. Chakrabarti, T. Delsate, and J. Steinhoff, (2013), arXiv:1304.2228 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    Steinhoff, T

    J. Steinhoff, T. Hinderer, A. Buonanno, and A. Tarac- chini, Phys. Rev. D94, 104028 (2016), arXiv:1608.01907 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, and B. Sauer, Phys. Rev. D109, L041504 (2024), arXiv:2312.00719 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    M. K. Mandal, P. Mastrolia, H. O. Silva, R. Patil, and J. Steinhoff, JHEP02, 188 (2024), arXiv:2308.01865 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    M. K. Mandal, P. Mastrolia, H. O. Silva, R. Patil, and J. Steinhoff, JHEP11, 067 (2023), arXiv:2304.02030 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    M. V. S. Saketh, Z. Zhou, S. Ghosh, J. Steinhoff, and D. Chatterjee, Phys. Rev. D110, 103001 (2024), arXiv:2407.08327 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Jarequi, S

    G. Jarequi, S. Mitra, and V. Vaidya, (2026), arXiv:2603.12331 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    Charalambous, S

    P. Charalambous, S. Dubovsky, and M. M. Ivanov, JHEP05, 038 (2021), arXiv:2102.08917 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    M. V. S. Saketh, Z. Zhou, and M. M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D109, 064058 (2024), arXiv:2307.10391 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Perry and M

    M. Perry and M. J. Rodriguez, (2023), arXiv:2310.03660 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    M. M. Ivanov, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez, and Z. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 131401 (2024), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 134, 159901 (2025)], arXiv:2401.08752 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Katagiri, K

    T. Katagiri, K. Yagi, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 29 111, 084080 (2025), arXiv:2409.18034 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Glazer, A

    D. Glazer, A. Joyce, M. J. Rodriguez, L. Santoni, A. R. Solomon, and L. F. Temoche, JHEP03, 036 (2026), arXiv:2412.21090 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    Caron-Huot, M

    S. Caron-Huot, M. Correia, G. Isabella, and M. Solon, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 191601 (2025), arXiv:2503.13593 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Combaluzier-Szteinsznaider, D

    O. Combaluzier-Szteinsznaider, D. Glazer, A. Joyce, M. J. Rodriguez, and L. Santoni, JHEP06, 032 (2026), arXiv:2511.02372 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    Chakraborty, V

    S. Chakraborty, V. De Luca, L. Gualtieri, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D112, 104015 (2025), arXiv:2507.22994 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    M. M. Ivanov, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez, and Z. Zhou, (2026), arXiv:2602.06951 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Hindereret al., Phys

    T. Hindereret al., Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 181101 (2016), arXiv:1602.00599 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  56. [56]

    Poisson, Phys

    E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D103, 064023 (2021), arXiv:2012.10184 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    Kobayashi, S

    H. Kobayashi, S. Mukohyama, N. Oshita, K. Takahashi, andV.Yingcharoenrat,Phys.Rev.D113,084011(2026), arXiv:2511.12580 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    P. Pani, M. M. Riva, L. Santoni, N. Savić, and F. Vernizzi, JHEP05, 074 (2026), arXiv:2512.14663 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Gamba, M

    R. Gamba, M. Breschi, S. Bernuzzi, M. Agathos, and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D103, 124015 (2021), arXiv:2009.08467 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  60. [60]

    Jiménez Forteza, T

    X. Jiménez Forteza, T. Abdelsalhin, P. Pani, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D98, 124014 (2018), arXiv:1807.08016 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  61. [61]

    Guptaet al., (2024), 10.21468/SciPostPhysComm- Rep.5, arXiv:2405.02197 [gr-qc]

    A. Guptaet al., (2024), 10.21468/SciPostPhysComm- Rep.5, arXiv:2405.02197 [gr-qc]

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphyscomm- 2024

  62. [62]

    Abacet al.(ET), JCAP03, 081 (2026), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    A. Abacet al.(ET), JCAP03, 081 (2026), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    Kol and M

    B. Kol and M. Smolkin, JHEP02, 010 (2012), arXiv:1110.3764 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  64. [64]

    L. Hui, A. Joyce, R. Penco, L. Santoni, and A. R. Solomon, JCAP04, 052 (2021), arXiv:2010.00593 [hep- th]

    arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

    M. J. Rodriguez, L. Santoni, A. R. Solomon, and L. F. Temoche, Phys. Rev. D108, 084011 (2023), arXiv:2304.03743 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    Charalambous and M

    P. Charalambous and M. M. Ivanov, JHEP07, 222 (2023), arXiv:2303.16036 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    Cardoso, E

    V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, A. Maselli, P. Pani, and G. Ra- poso, Phys. Rev.D95, 084014 (2017), [Addendum: Phys. Rev.D95,no.8,089901(2017)], arXiv:1701.01116 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

    De Luca, J

    V. De Luca, J. Khoury, and S. S. C. Wong, Phys. Rev. D108, 044066 (2023), arXiv:2211.14325 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  69. [69]

    Barbosa, P

    S. Barbosa, P. Brax, S. Fichet, and L. de Souza, JCAP 07, 071 (2025), arXiv:2501.18684 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    J. E. Vines and E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D88, 024046 (2013), arXiv:1009.4919 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  71. [71]

    I. Z. Rothstein, Gen. Rel. Grav.46, 1726 (2014)

    2014

  72. [72]

    R. A. Porto, Phys. Rept.633, 1 (2016), arXiv:1601.04914 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  73. [73]

    Levi, Rept

    M. Levi, Rept. Prog. Phys.83, 075901 (2020), arXiv:1807.01699 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2020

  74. [74]

    W. D. Goldberger, (2022), arXiv:2212.06677 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2022

  75. [75]

    W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D73, 104030 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0511133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  76. [76]

    W. D. Goldberger, J. Li, and I. Z. Rothstein, JHEP06, 053 (2021), arXiv:2012.14869 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, R. Roiban, E. Sawyer, and C.-H. Shen, JHEP05, 188 (2021), arXiv:2010.08559 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  78. [78]

    De Luca, J

    V. De Luca, J. Khoury, and S. S. C. Wong, Phys. Rev. D108, 024048 (2023), arXiv:2305.14444 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  79. [79]

    M. M. Riva, L. Santoni, N. Savić, and F. Vernizzi, Phys. Lett. B854, 138710 (2024), arXiv:2312.05065 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Iteanu, M

    S. Iteanu, M. M. Riva, L. Santoni, N. Savić, and F. Vernizzi, JHEP02, 174 (2025), arXiv:2410.03542 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.