Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Masquerading hybrid stars with dark matter

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a gravitationally coupled dark-matter component can raise a neutron star's central pressure past the hadron–quark phase transition, producing hybrid stars at unprecedentedly low masses that masquerade as purely…

desk verdict A transparent proof-of-principle that DM can lower the minimum mass for hybrid stars, but the headline 'trigger' is engineered by pushing the phase transition above the paper's own cited bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05207 v4 pith:3I2UKB5T submitted 2024-12-06 hep-ph astro-ph.HEnucl-th

Carline Biesdorf , Jürgen Schaffner-Bielich , Laura Tolos This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEnucl-th PACS 97.60.Jd95.35.+d
keywords darkmatterhybridstarsquarktwo-fluidapproachTolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoffequationsmasqueradingoystersneutronstarequationofstate
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that a gravitationally coupled dark-matter component inside a neutron star raises the central pressure of ordinary matter enough to cross the hadron–quark phase transition, so that quark cores appear in stars of unprecedentedly low total mass. For the equations of state chosen, no stable hybrid star exists without dark matter, so the effect is attributed to the dark matter itself. The authors introduce 'masquerading hybrid stars': dark-matter-admixed hybrid stars whose total mass and ordinary-matter radius curves overlap those of purely hadronic stars, making the quark core invisible to mass–radius measurements alone. They also report 'dark oysters', strongly interacting light dark matter configurations with a small ordinary-matter core and a huge dark-matter halo. The point of the work is that dark matter can qualitatively change the internal composition of neutron stars while leaving their external appearance nearly unchanged.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the two-fluid Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff system, solved with a dimensionless rescaling by the dark-matter particle mass, together with a two-fluid stability criterion: the onset of radial instability occurs when the determinant of the matrix of particle-number variations with respect to both central energy densities vanishes. On the microphysics side, the normal-matter equation of state is a Maxwell construction between an NL3$\omega\rho$ hadronic model with hyperons and a vector-interacting MIT bag model for uds quarks, pinned at a transition pressure $P_0 = 361$ MeV/fm$^3$ and chemical potential $\mu_0 = 1698$ MeV; the dark-matter equation of state is a non-self-annihilating self-interacting Fermi gas with interaction strength $y = m_D/m_I$ and particle masses 5 and 100 GeV. The phase-transition pressure acts as a threshold: dark matter compresses the normal fluid until its central pressure crosses $P_0$, creating a quark core.

What would settle it

Recompute the mass–radius diagram of the same hadronic equation of state with the hadron–quark transition fixed at $\mu_0 = 1400$ MeV (the bound quoted from Ref. [78]) instead of 1698 MeV: if stable hybrid stars then appear in the zero-dark-matter branch, the paper's central claim that dark matter triggers quark matter at unprecedented low masses would reduce to an artifact of the relaxed transition point. A second check is a full Sturm–Liouville eigenmode analysis of the two-fluid configurations: the authors note their stability criterion may not track the lowest eigenmode at high pressures, so the dark oyster branch should be re-examined for a true $\omega_0^2 < 0$ instability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the two-fluid Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equations with ordinary and dark matter interacting only through gravity, the authors find that adding a self-interacting Fermi-gas dark matter component increases the central pressure of the hadronic fluid. Once the ratio of dark-to-ordinary central pressure is large enough (for example $P_{\rm DM}/P_{\rm NM}\sim 10^4$ for weakly interacting $m_D=100$ GeV dark matter, but only $\sim 0.5$ for strongly interacting $m_D=100$ GeV), the central pressure of normal matter reaches the Maxwell-construction transition value $P_0 = 361$ MeV/fm$^3$, and a quark core forms. The critical total mass for the first stable hybrid star drops with increasing dark matter content, reaching values around 1.4 $M_\odot$ for suitable parameters, whereas the same equations of state yield no stable hybrid star without dark matter. Because the total mass and ordinary-matter radius of these hybrid stars nearly coincide with purely hadronic stars, the quark core is 'masqueraded'. For strongly interacting dark matter of mass 5 GeV the authors identify dark oysters—objects with a large dark-matter radius (tens of km) and a small ordinary-matter radius (a few km), with a quark-matter core inside the ordinary core.

Load-bearing premise

The central result depends on placing the hadron–quark phase transition at the high pressure $P_0 = 361$ MeV/fm$^3$ (chemical potential $\mu_0 = 1698$ MeV), which relaxes the literature upper limit of $\mu_0 = 1400$ MeV quoted from Ref. [78]; if the true transition sits at or below that limit, stable hybrid stars would already exist without dark matter and the claimed triggering effect would not be generic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If neutron stars accumulate enough dark matter, quark cores would appear at total masses as low as about 1.4 $M_\odot$, well below the threshold expected for purely hadronic equations of state.
  • Such hybrid stars would be observationally disguised: mass and radius measurements alone cannot distinguish them from purely hadronic stars, so the presence of quark matter would need other probes such as tidal deformability, cooling, or oscillations.
  • The critical mass for quark-core appearance decreases monotonically with increasing dark-matter pressure ratio for weakly and moderately interacting dark matter, giving a correlation between dark-matter content and minimum hybrid mass.
  • Strongly interacting 5 GeV dark matter produces dark oysters—objects whose total mass is several solar masses but whose ordinary-matter radius is only a few kilometres—which could appear as unusually compact neutron stars.
  • For normal-matter equations of state that reach higher pressures, larger pressure ratios would eventually produce hybrid dark compact planets, objects with planetary masses and quark cores.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The compression mechanism is not specific to the hadron–quark transition: any gravitationally coupled secondary fluid that raises the primary fluid's central pressure would lower the threshold for any first-order phase transition in compact stars, so similar 'triggering' should occur for other density-driven transitions.
  • The masquerade implies that population-level analyses are needed: if dark-matter-admixed hybrid stars exist, the mass-radius distribution should show a pile-up at the critical mass relative to hadronic-only predictions, which could be searched for in current pulsar mass and radius catalogs.
  • The strong sensitivity to $\mu_0$ suggests the phenomenon is a proof of principle for a class of equations of state rather than a unique prediction; a Bayesian scan sampling the phase-transition parameters together with dark-matter parameters would quantify how generic the low-mass quark-core branch really is.
  • The dark oyster branch, with its large dark-matter halo, would have distinctive observational signatures—for instance, high compactness masquerading as a small radius—that could be probed through gravitational-wave ringdown or tidal effects if such objects exist in binary systems.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the structure of neutron stars admixed with dark matter (DM) using a two-fluid description in which normal matter (NM) and DM interact only gravitationally. The NM equation of state is a Maxwell-constructed hybrid EoS combining the NL3*wrho relativistic mean-field model with hyperons and a modified MIT bag model for quark matter, while DM is modeled as a self-interacting Fermi gas. The authors integrate the coupled Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations and apply a recent two-fluid radial-stability criterion. Their central claims are: (i) the presence of DM raises the central pressure of NM at a given total mass, so that the hadron-quark transition pressure P0 = 361 MeV/fm^3 is reached at lower total masses, producing quark cores down to about 1.4 solar masses for suitable DM parameters, whereas the adopted EoS admits no stable hybrid star without DM; (ii) the resulting DM-admixed hybrid stars can have mass-radius relations nearly identical to purely hadronic stars ("masquerading hybrid stars"); and (iii) for light, strongly self-interacting DM (mD = 5 GeV, y = 10^3) one finds "dark oysters," stars with an extended DM halo and a small NM core. The paper is explicit about its modeling choices, including the deliberate selection of EoS parameters for which no stable single-fluid hybrid star exists.

Significance. If the mechanism holds, it is an interesting addition to compact-star phenomenology: a gravitationally coupled DM component would provide a new channel for reaching the quark phase at lower total masses than in purely baryonic matter, and the masquerading degeneracy strengthens the case that mass-radius data alone cannot identify quark cores. The work has notable strengths: it appears to be the first two-fluid treatment of DM in hybrid stars; the TOV integration and the two-fluid stability criterion follow published methods; and the paper is unusually transparent, stating its parameter choices, its deliberate suppression of the no-DM hybrid branch, and its own caveat about the high-pressure stability criterion. The main weakness is that the quantitative headline is contingent on a hadron-quark transition chemical potential that exceeds the upper limit the paper itself quotes from Ref. [78]; as presented, the paper is a proof-of-principle study of a plausible mechanism rather than a robust prediction, and its central claim should be re-tested against the cited bound.

major comments (2)
  1. [III.B.1, Table III, Sec. V.A] The central quantitative claim — that DM triggers quark matter at total masses down to about 1.4 solar masses whereas no stable hybrid star exists without DM — rests on placing the Maxwell transition at P0 = 361 MeV/fm^3 and mu0 = 1698 MeV (Table III), explicitly "relaxing" the upper limit mu0 = 1400 MeV quoted from Ref. [78]. Because Sec. III.B.1 states that the EoS parameters were chosen so that the single-fluid transition occurs only for unstable configurations (Fig. 2), the absence of stable no-DM hybrid stars is an input assumption, and the qualitative outcome is guaranteed by that input. The cited 1400 MeV limit is not a free dial: if the physical transition lies at or below that bound, the same EoS combination likely produces a stable hybrid branch already without DM, in which case the appropriate statement would be the milder "DM lowers the threshold mass" rather than "DM triggers quark matter." I request two concrete checks: (a) recompute the no-DM mass-radius diagram with a transition at mu0 = 1400 MeV (and at the lower bound mu0 = 1050 MeV of Ref. [107]) and report whether stable hybrids exist without DM; and (b) scan Mcrit over the allowed mu0 range to show the sensitivity of the headline result. Depending on the outcome, the Abstract and Conclusions should be reframed to make explicit that the quantitative claims are conditional on the chosen transition point.
  2. [IV, V.C, Table V] The dark-oyster results and the associated high-pressure hybrid configurations are certified by a two-fluid stability criterion (Eqs. (26)-(27)) that the authors themselves qualify in Sec. V.C: "it is not totally clear that, at high pressures, the change in stability showed by our stability analysis really corresponds to the change of the lowest energy mode omega0." This caveat applies precisely to the configurations in Table V, which have NM central pressures up to 997 MeV/fm^3, at the edge of the artificial 1000 MeV/fm^3 cutoff. Since the abstract and conclusions headline the dark oysters as a new class of objects, the paper should either provide a genuine normal-mode analysis for representative high-pressure configurations or explicitly label the dark-oyster segment as tentative pending a rigorous stability treatment. The caveat should also be moved from Sec. V.C to the stability section so that its scope is stated before the results are presented.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Conclusions] The phrase "unprecedented low masses" is calibrated only against the no-DM threshold of 2.35 solar masses stated in Sec. V.A; the manuscript does not compare with hybrid-star masses in the existing literature (e.g., Refs. [57, 75, 83]), so the wording overstates the claim and should be qualified.
  2. [Table IV] In the row mD = 5 GeV, y = 10^1, the quoted DM radius range "1.02 x 10^-1 - 8.80 x 10^-1 km" is inconsistent with the statement in Sec. V.B that the DM radius slightly decreases with the pressure ratio; please verify the entries.
  3. [V.C] No formation or accumulation scenario is given for the dark-oyster configurations, which is an important gap given that their DM masses (MDM about 2.8-7.6 solar masses) exceed the baryonic content by orders of magnitude; a brief discussion of whether such halo-plus-core states can be reached dynamically would help.
  4. [V.A] Table V shows PNM = 997 MeV/fm^3 for the PDM/PNM = 10^1 case, essentially at the imposed 1000 MeV/fm^3 cutoff; since the paper argues the qualitative conclusions are independent of the cutoff, a short convergence statement (e.g., repeating one case with a higher cutoff) would remove a residual concern about these boundary solutions.
  5. [References] Several references are incomplete or malformed (e.g., Refs. [5], [6], [76], [109], [110] lack proper author lists or titles) and should be completed before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DM-triggered quark-core result follows from integrating the two-fluid TOV equations with stated EoS inputs; the engineered no-DM baseline is a transparent control, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Given the stated hadronic EoS (NL3*ωρ with hyperons), the MIT-bag quark EoS, the Maxwell construction at P0 = 361 MeV/fm3, and the DM Fermi-gas EoS, the normal-matter central pressure as a function of P_DM/P_NM is obtained by solving the coupled TOV equations (Eq. 1). The appearance of quark cores at low total masses is then read off from the point where P_NM crosses P0, not imposed by definition. The no-DM baseline is deliberately chosen to have no stable hybrid branch: Sec. III.B.1 states that this parametrization choice means 'all the dynamically stable stars ... are purely hadronic' and that the reason is 'to emphasise the effect of the DM on the hadron-quark phase transition.' This is a transparent control case isolating the compression effect of DM, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The relaxation of the μ0 upper limit from Ref. [78] is an explicit, externally motivated model assumption, which makes the quantitative headline conditional on the assumed transition point but does not make the derivation circular. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [83,84,94]) supply input EoSs and DM models but do not carry the inference; the two-fluid stability criterion of Ref. [53] is external. The authors also explicitly flag the high-pressure stability caveat in Sec. V.C ('our results for large pressures should be regarded with a grain of salt'), which is a correctness limitation, not a circular step. The 'masquerading hybrid stars' and 'dark oysters' concepts are phenomenological labels for configurations obtained from the TOV solutions, not renamed fits. Therefore no load-bearing circular step can be identified; the result is conditional on well-stated input choices, but not equivalent to them by construction.

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

The central claim rests on (1) a hybrid EoS whose parameters come from the authors' own prior work (Refs. [83, 94, 101]) and are deliberately chosen so that no stable hybrid star exists without DM; (2) an adopted phase transition point mu0 = 1698 MeV that exceeds the upper bound quoted from the literature; (3) a two-fluid stability criterion whose validity at high pressure the authors themselves question; and (4) a DM EoS with unconstrained parameters (m_D, y) scanned over orders of magnitude. The TOV integration itself is standard. The balance is a legitimate but parameter-driven proof of principle, not a parameter-free prediction.

free parameters (5)
  • Baryon chemical potential at the hadron-quark transition mu0 = 1698 MeV (P0 = 361 MeV/fm3)
    Emerges from the Maxwell construction for the chosen EoS pair, but the paper exceeds the mu0 <= 1400 MeV limit it quotes from Ref. [78]. This choice sets the central pressure that dark matter must reach and is the main lever controlling the 'DM triggers quark matter' result.
  • MIT bag model parameters (B^1/4, G_V, b4) = 155 MeV, 1.0 fm^2, 1.2
    Taken from Refs. [83, 101] with overlapping authorship. The values are selected so that uds quark matter is unstable and so that no stable hybrid star exists without DM, the baseline that makes the DM effect dramatic.
  • Hadronic NL3*wrho parametrization = Table I: g_Nsigma = 10.0944, g_Nomega = 12.8065, g_Nrho = 14.4410, Lambda_v = 0.045
    Taken from Ref. [94], which includes the first author of the present paper. It fixes the hadronic side of the phase transition and the hyperon onset pressures.
  • Hyperon potentials in symmetric nuclear matter = U_Lambda = -28 MeV, U_Sigma = +30 MeV, U_Xi = -4 MeV
    Adjusted to hypernuclear observables and used to fix the hyperon-sigma couplings (Table II); these set where hyperons appear but are not the main lever for the central claim.
  • Dark matter particle mass m_D and interaction strength y = m_D = 5, 100 GeV; y = 10^-2 to 10^3 (scanned)
    Free model parameters scanned across the paper. The qualitative conclusions depend strongly on them; the dark oyster branch exists only for m_D = 5 GeV and y = 10^3, and the required P_DM/P_NM ratios reach 10^8.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Normal and dark matter can be treated as two perfect fluids that interact only gravitationally, each with its own pressure and energy density, in a common metric with a single potential nu(r) (Eq. 1).
    Sec. II, Eq. (1). This neglects nongravitational DM-NM interactions, drag, viscosity, heat flow, and the question of how the DM reached its equilibrium configuration.
  • domain assumption The Maxwell construction, equality of chemical potentials and pressures (Eq. 23), correctly describes the hadron-quark phase transition inside the star.
    Sec. III.B.1. This excludes mixed phases, surface tension, and interface effects that a Gibbs construction would include.
  • domain assumption Radial stability of two-fluid stars is set by the Hippert et al. (2023) criterion, det(dN_i/depsilon_c^j) = 0 with both eigenvalues positive (Eqs. 25-27).
    Sec. IV, Eqs. (25)-(27). The paper itself says it is 'not totally clear' that this criterion tracks the lowest eigenmode at high pressures (Sec. V.C), the regime of the dark oyster results.
  • domain assumption The self-interacting Fermi gas EoS of Narain et al. (2006), Eqs. (3)-(4), adequately describes dark matter in compact stars.
    Sec. III.A. The EoS adds a repulsive y^2 z^6 term; m_D and y are unconstrained by data and scanned over orders of magnitude, so the EoS is an assumption rather than an established input.
  • ad hoc to paper The phase transition point P0 = 361 MeV/fm^3 and mu0 = 1698 MeV is physically acceptable despite exceeding the mu0 = 1400 MeV upper limit quoted from Ref. [78].
    Sec. III.B.1. The paper 'relaxes' the cited bound without resolving the tension; this specific transition point is the threshold whose crossing defines the central claim.
invented entities (2)
  • Dark oysters
    purpose: Named class of DM-admixed compact stars with a large DM halo (R_DM up to roughly 110 km) around a small normal-matter core (R_NM down to 0.6 km), now with a quark-matter core; the paper proposes them as potentially observable objects.
    The configurations were already reported in Refs. [25, 45, 71] cited by the paper; the new element is the hybrid core inside the small normal-matter core. No falsifiable signature outside the model's own mass-radius relations is provided, and the stability analysis is explicitly uncertain at the relevant high pressures.
  • Masquerading hybrid stars
    purpose: Conceptual label for DM-admixed hybrid stars whose total mass and normal-matter radius match purely hadronic stars, hiding the quark core from mass-radius observations.
    This re-frames a degeneracy that follows from the small quark cores (radii 4 cm to 0.5 km) produced by the chosen EoS; no new entity is introduced and no independent observable is proposed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Masquerading hybrid stars with dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3I2UKB5T

@misc{pith2026241205207,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Masquerading hybrid stars with dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3I2UKB5T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05207}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the influence of dark matter on hybrid stars. Using a two-fluid approach, where normal and dark matter components interact only gravitationally, we explore how dark matter can trigger the appearance of quark matter in neutron stars for unprecedented low masses. Our findings reveal that dark matter increases the central pressure of neutron stars, potentially leading to the formation of hybrid stars with quark cores even at very low compact star masses. The critical mass for the appearance of quark matter decreases with increasing dark matter content. We introduce the concept of "masquerading hybrid stars", where dark matter admixed stars exhibit similar mass-radius relations to purely hadronic stars, making it challenging to distinguish between them based solely on these parameters. Additionally, we identify a unique class of objects termed "dark oysters", characterized by a large dark matter halo and a small normal matter core, highlighting the diverse structural possibilities for compact stars influenced by dark matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05207 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. DM EoSs for weakly ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. EoS (top) and mass-radius relation (bottom). No [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. we show only the results where MDM/MNM < 1, except for the bottom right panel. For the pressure ratios where the maximum mass is no longer reached, the DM already dominates, but only at low NM pressures. For the case of mD = 5 GeV and y = 103 we find, however, a very peculiar behavior, with the total mass growing and the NM radius decreasing (while the DM radius in￾creases) with larger PDM/PNM ratios. In this case w… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Central pressure of normal matter ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Critical mass ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Mass (top) and radius (bottom) of QM as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Critical mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Total mass (top panel) and DM mass (bottom panel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A self-consistent Higgs-portal framework for dark matter--admixed neutron stars: Collider-motivated benchmarks meet multimessenger constraints

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Adding heavy dark matter to neutron stars via nχ=FχnB softens the equation of state and lowers the maximum mass, but the vector interaction invoked is numerically negligible.

  2. Probing Neutron Star Interiors and the Properties of Cold Ultra-dense Matter with the SKAO

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 3.5 of 10

    SKAO's sensitivity, surveys and sub-arraying will deliver tighter NS mass, MoI, spin, glitch and precession constraints that, with X-ray and GW data, probe cold ultra-dense matter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [78]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. N¨ attil¨ a, and A. Vuorinen, Nature Physics 16, 907 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [107]

    Fukushima and T

    K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, Reports on Progress in Physics 74, 014001 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [1]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Physics Reports 405, 279–390 (2005)

    2005

  4. [2]

    A. et al. (Planck Collaboration), A & A 641, A6 (2020). 15

    2020

  5. [3]

    M. B. et al. (SDSS Collaboration), A&A 568, A22 (2014)

    2014

  6. [4]

    P. A. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, A. Banday, R. Barreiro, J. Bartlett, N. Bartolo, et al. , Astronomy & Astro- physics 594, A13 (2016)

    2016

  7. [5]

    A. G. and A. T. et al. (ATLAS Collabora- tion), Journal of High Energy Physics 75 (2013), 10.1007/JHEP04(2013)075

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2013)075 2013

  8. [6]

    C. S. and K. V. et al. (CMS Collaboration), Journal of High Energy Physics 94 (2012), 10.1007/JHEP09(2012)094

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2012)094 2012

Show all 117 references
  1. [7]

    Klasen, M

    M. Klasen, M. Pohl, and G. Sigl, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 85, 1 (2015)

    2015

  2. [8]

    Goldman and S

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

    1989

  3. [9]

    Brayeur and P

    L. Brayeur and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 061301 (2012)

    2012

  4. [10]

    Kouvaris, Physical Review D 77 (2008), 10.1103/physrevd.77.023006

    C. Kouvaris, Physical Review D 77 (2008), 10.1103/physrevd.77.023006

    2008 doi

  5. [11]

    Kouvaris and P

    C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 091301 (2011)

    2011

  6. [12]

    Fuller and C

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

    2015

  7. [13]

    J. F. Acevedo, J. Bramante, A. Goodman, J. Kopp, and T. Opferkuch, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021, 026 (2021)

    2021

  8. [14]

    Ray, Phys

    A. Ray, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083012 (2023)

    2023

  9. [15]

    Bhattacharya, B

    S. Bhattacharya, B. Dasgupta, R. Laha, and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 091401 (2023)

    2023

  10. [16]

    Bhattacharya, A

    S. Bhattacharya, A. L. Miller, and A. Ray, Physical Review D 110 (2024), 10.1103/physrevd.110.043006

    2024 doi

  11. [17]

    Kouvaris and P

    C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D 83, 083512 (2011)

    2011

  12. [18]

    Bertone and M

    G. Bertone and M. Fairbairn, Phys. Rev. D 77, 043515 (2008)

    2008

  13. [19]

    Kouvaris and P

    C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D 82, 063531 (2010)

    2010

  14. [20]

    McCullough and M

    M. McCullough and M. Fairbairn, Phys. Rev. D 81, 083520 (2010)

    2010

  15. [21]

    de Lavallaz and M

    A. de Lavallaz and M. Fairbairn, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123521 (2010)

    2010

  16. [22]

    Sedrakian, Phys

    A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. D 99, 043011 (2019)

    2019

  17. [23]

    S. A. Bhat and A. Paul, The European Physical Journal C 80 (2020), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8072-x

    2020 doi

  18. [24]

    ´Angeles P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa and J

    M. ´Angeles P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa and J. Silk, Physics Letters B 711, 6 (2012)

    2012

  19. [25]

    Deliyergiyev, A

    M. Deliyergiyev, A. Del Popolo, L. Tolos, M. Le Delliou, X. Lee, and F. Burgio, Phys. Rev. D 99, 063015 (2019)

    2019

  20. [26]

    Blinnikov and M

    S. Blinnikov and M. Y. Khlopov, Soviet Astronomy, vol. 27, July-Aug. 1983, p. 371-375. Translation Astro- nomicheskii Zhurnal, vol. 60, July-Aug. 1983, p. 632-639 27, 371 (1983)

    1983

  21. [27]

    Khlopov, G

    M. Khlopov, G. Beskin, N. Bochkarev, L. Pustilnik, and S. Pustilnik, Observational physics of mirror world , Tech. Rep. (1989)

    1989

  22. [28]

    A. Li, F. Huang, and R.-X. Xu, Astroparticle Physics 37, 70 (2012)

    2012

  23. [29]

    Sandin and P

    F. Sandin and P. Ciarcelluti, Astroparticle Physics 32, 278 (2009)

    2009

  24. [30]

    Leung, M.-C

    S.-C. Leung, M.-C. Chu, and L.-M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 84, 107301 (2011)

    2011

  25. [31]

    Leung, M.-C

    S.-C. Leung, M.-C. Chu, and L.-M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 85, 103528 (2012)

    2012

  26. [32]

    Xiang, W.-Z

    Q.-F. Xiang, W.-Z. Jiang, D.-R. Zhang, and R.-Y. Yang, Phys. Rev. C 89, 025803 (2014)

    2014

  27. [33]

    Goldman, R

    I. Goldman, R. Mohapatra, S. Nussinov, D. Rosenbaum, and V. Teplitz, Physics Letters B 725, 200–207 (2013)

    2013

  28. [34]

    Khlopov, International Journal of Modern Physics A 28, 1330042 (2013)

    M. Khlopov, International Journal of Modern Physics A 28, 1330042 (2013)

    2013

  29. [35]

    Mukhopadhyay and J

    P. Mukhopadhyay and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 93, 083009 (2016)

    2016

  30. [36]

    Tolos and J

    L. Tolos and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 92, 123002 (2015)

    2015

  31. [37]

    Dengler, J

    Y. Dengler, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and L. Tolos, Phys. Rev. D 103, 109901 (2021)

    2021

  32. [38]

    Rezaei, The Astrophysical Journal 835, 33 (2017)

    Z. Rezaei, The Astrophysical Journal 835, 33 (2017)

    2017

  33. [39]

    Panotopoulos and I

    G. Panotopoulos and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 96, 083004 (2017)

    2017

  34. [40]

    A. E. Nelson, S. Reddy, and D. Zhou, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics 2019, 012 (2019)

    2019

  35. [41]

    Ellis, G

    J. Ellis, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, and V. Vaskonen, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123007 (2018)

    2018

  36. [42]

    M. I. Gresham and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 99, 083008 (2019)

    2019

  37. [43]

    Del Popolo, M

    A. Del Popolo, M. Deliyergiyev, M. Le Delliou, L. Tolos, and F. Burgio, Physics of the Dark Universe 28, 100484 (2020)

    2020

  38. [44]

    Ivanytskyi, V

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

    2020

  39. [45]

    Dengler, J

    Y. Dengler, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and L. Tolos, Phys. Rev. D 105, 043013 (2022)

    2022

  40. [46]

    Rafiei Karkevandi, S

    D. Rafiei Karkevandi, S. Shakeri, V. Sagun, and O. Ivanytskyi, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023001 (2022)

    2022

  41. [47]

    Sen and A

    D. Sen and A. Guha, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society 504, 3354 (2021)

    2021

  42. [48]

    Guha and D

    A. Guha and D. Sen, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2021, 027 (2021)

    2021

  43. [49]

    Z. Miao, Y. Zhu, A. Li, and F. Huang, The Astrophys- ical Journal 936, 69 (2022)

    2022

  44. [50]

    Sen and A

    D. Sen and A. Guha, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society 517, 518 (2022)

    2022

  45. [51]

    Ferreira and E

    O. Ferreira and E. S. Fraga, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023, 012 (2023)

    2023

  46. [52]

    Shakeri and D

    S. Shakeri and D. R. Karkevandi, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043029 (2024)

    2024

  47. [53]

    Hippert, E

    M. Hippert, E. Dillingham, H. Tan, D. Curtin, J. Noronha-Hostler, and N. Yunes, Physical Review D 107 (2023), 10.1103/physrevd.107.115028

    2023 doi

  48. [54]

    Cassing, A

    M. Cassing, A. Brisebois, M. Azeem, and J. Schaffner- Bielich, The Astrophysical Journal 944, 130 (2023)

    2023

  49. [55]

    Z¨ ollner and B

    R. Z¨ ollner and B. K¨ ampfer, Astronomy1, 36 (2022)

    2022

  50. [56]

    Collier, D

    M. Collier, D. Croon, and R. K. Leane, Phys. Rev. D 106, 123027 (2022)

    2022

  51. [57]

    C. H. Lenzi, M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, L. L. Lopes, and D. P. Menezes, The European Physical Journal C 83, 1 (2023)

    2023

  52. [58]

    Z¨ ollner, M

    R. Z¨ ollner, M. Ding, and B. K¨ ampfer, Particles6, 217 (2023)

    2023

  53. [59]

    Cronin, X

    J. Cronin, X. Zhang, and B. Kain, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103016 (2023)

    2023

  54. [60]

    Thakur, T

    P. Thakur, T. Malik, A. Das, T. K. Jha, and C. m. c. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D109, 043030 (2024)

    2024

  55. [61]

    Sagun, E

    V. Sagun, E. Giangrandi, T. Dietrich, O. Ivanytskyi, R. Negreiros, and C. Providˆ encia, The Astrophysical Journal 958, 49 (2023). 16

    2023

  56. [62]

    Mariani, C

    M. Mariani, C. Albertus, M. d. R. Alessandroni, M. G. Orsaria, M. ´A. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, and I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society527, 6795 (2024)

    2024

  57. [63]

    R. F. Diedrichs, N. Becker, C. Jockel, J.-E. Christian, L. Sagunski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064009 (2023)

    2023

  58. [64]

    Liu, J.-B

    H.-M. Liu, J.-B. Wei, Z.-H. Li, G. Burgio, and H.- J. Schulze, Physics of the Dark Universe 42, 101338 (2023)

    2023

  59. [65]

    Bramante and N

    J. Bramante and N. Raj, Physics Reports 1052, 1 (2024), dark matter in compact stars

    2024

  60. [66]

    Giangrandi, A

    E. Giangrandi, A. ´Avila, V. Sagun, O. Ivanytskyi, and C. Providˆ encia, Particles7, 179 (2024)

    2024

  61. [67]

    Guha and D

    A. Guha and D. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043038 (2024)

    2024

  62. [68]

    Rafiei Karkevandi, M

    D. Rafiei Karkevandi, M. Shahrbaf, S. Shakeri, and S. Typel, Particles 7, 201 (2024)

    2024

  63. [69]

    Dark matter effects on the properties of neutron stars: compactness and tidal deformability,

    H.-M. Liu, J.-B. Wei, Z.-H. Li, G. F. Burgio, H. C. Das, and H. J. Schulze, “Dark matter effects on the properties of neutron stars: compactness and tidal deformability,” (2024), arXiv:2403.17024 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [70]

    Ciarcelluti and F

    P. Ciarcelluti and F. Sandin, Physics Letters B 695, 19 (2011)

    2011

  65. [71]

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

    2024

  66. [72]

    S. L. Pitz and J. Schaffner-Bielich, (2024), arXiv:2408.13157 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [73]

    Shirke, S

    S. Shirke, S. Ghosh, D. Chatterjee, L. Sagun- ski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, JCAP 12, 008 (2023), arXiv:2305.05664 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [74]

    Shirke, B

    S. Shirke, B. K. Pradhan, D. Chatterjee, L. Sagun- ski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063025 (2024), arXiv:2403.18740 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [75]

    Pal and G

    S. Pal and G. Chaudhuri, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024, 064 (2024)

    2024

  70. [76]

    Ivanenko and D

    D. Ivanenko and D. Kurdgelaidze,HYPOTHESIS CON- CERNING QUARK STARS. , Tech. Rep. (Moscow State Univ., 1965)

    1965

  71. [77]

    D. P. Menezes, Universe 7 (2021), 10.3390/uni- verse7080267

    2021 doi

  72. [79]

    Bodmer, Physical Review D 4, 1601 (1971)

    A. Bodmer, Physical Review D 4, 1601 (1971)

    1971

  73. [80]

    Witten, Physical Review D 30, 272 (1984)

    E. Witten, Physical Review D 30, 272 (1984)

    1984

  74. [81]

    Luk´ acs, J

    B. Luk´ acs, J. Zim´ anyi, and N. Balazs, Physics Letters B 183, 27 (1987)

    1987

  75. [82]

    N. K. Glendenning, Physical Review D 46, 1274 (1992)

    1992

  76. [83]

    L. L. Lopes, C. Biesdorf, and D. P. Menezes, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 512, 5110 (2022)

    2022

  77. [84]

    Narain, J

    G. Narain, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and I. N. Mishustin, Phys. Rev. D 74, 063003 (2006)

    2006

  78. [85]

    Advances in nuclear physics, edited by jw negele and e. vogt,

    B. Serot and J. Walecka, “Advances in nuclear physics, edited by jw negele and e. vogt,” (1986)

    1986

  79. [86]

    Boguta and A

    J. Boguta and A. Bodmer, Nuclear Physics A 292, 413 (1977)

    1977

  80. [87]

    Boguta and H

    J. Boguta and H. Stoecker, Phys. Lett. B 120, 289 (1983)

    1983

  81. [88]

    C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5647 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0010227

    2001 arXiv

  82. [89]

    C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 64, 062802 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0108036

    2001 arXiv

  83. [90]

    Lalazissis, S

    G. Lalazissis, S. Karatzikos, R. Fossion, D. P. Arteaga, A. Afanasjev, and P. Ring, Physics Letters B 671, 36 (2009)

    2009

  84. [91]

    L. L. Lopes and D. P. Menezes, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 936, 41 (2022)

    2022

  85. [92]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, S. S. Avancini, B. V. Carlson, A. Delfino, D. P. Menezes, C. Providˆ encia, S. Typel, and J. R. Stone, Phys. Rev. C 90, 055203 (2014)

    2014

  86. [93]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015007 (2017)

    2017

  87. [94]

    Biesdorf, D

    C. Biesdorf, D. P. Menezes, and L. L. Lopes, Brazilian Journal of Physics 53, 137 (2023), 10.1007/s13538-023- 01348-z

    2023 doi

  88. [95]

    Dover and A

    C. Dover and A. Gal, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 12, 171 (1984)

    1984

  89. [96]

    Schaffner and I

    J. Schaffner and I. N. Mishustin, Phys. Rev. C 53, 1416 (1996)

    1996

  90. [97]

    Banik, M

    S. Banik, M. Hempel, and D. Bandyopadhyay, The As- trophysical Journal Supplement Series 214, 22 (2014)

    2014

  91. [98]

    Tolos, M

    L. Tolos, M. Centelles, and A. Ramos, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 34, e065 (2017)

    2017

  92. [99]

    Tolos, M

    L. Tolos, M. Centelles, and A. Ramos, Astrophys. J. 834, 3 (2017), arXiv:1610.00919 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  93. [100]

    L. L. Lopes and D. P. Menezes, Phys. Rev. C89, 025805 (2014)

    2014

  94. [101]

    L. L. Lopes, C. Biesdorf, and D. P. Menezes, Physica Scripta 96, 065303 (2021)

    2021

  95. [102]

    Tanabashi, K

    Particle Data Group, M. Tanabashi, K. Hagiwara, K. Hikasa, K. Nakamura, and Y. Nir, Physical Review D 98 (2018), 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001

    2018 doi

  96. [103]

    Negele and D

    J. Negele and D. Vautherin, Nuclear Physics A 207, 298 (1973)

    1973

  97. [104]

    S. B. R¨ uster, M. Hempel, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. C 73, 035804 (2006)

    2006

  98. [105]

    B. K. Harrison, K. S. Thorne, M. Wakano, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation theory and gravitational collapse (1965)

    1965

  99. [106]

    Komoltsev and A

    O. Komoltsev and A. Kurkela, Physical Review Letters 128 (2022), 10.1103/physrevlett.128.202701

    2022 doi

  100. [108]

    A. V. Olinto, Physics Letters B 192, 71 (1987)

    1987

  101. [109]

    T. E. R. et. al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters 918, L27 (2021)

    2021

  102. [110]

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters 934, L17 (2022)

    2022

  103. [111]

    Schaffner-Bielich, Compact star physics (Cambridge University Press, 2020)

    J. Schaffner-Bielich, Compact star physics (Cambridge University Press, 2020)

    2020

  104. [112]

    Henriques, A

    A. Henriques, A. R. Liddle, and R. Moorhouse, Physics Letters B 251, 511 (1990)

    1990

  105. [113]

    Kain, Physical Review D 103 (2021), 10.1103/phys- revd.103.043009

    B. Kain, Physical Review D 103 (2021), 10.1103/phys- revd.103.043009

    2021 doi

  106. [114]

    Di Giovanni, D

    F. Di Giovanni, D. Guerra, S. Albanesi, M. Miravet- Ten´ es, and D. Tseneklidou, Phys. Rev. D 106, 084013 (2022)

    2022

  107. [115]

    Valdez-Alvarado, C

    S. Valdez-Alvarado, C. Palenzuela, D. Alic, and L. A. Ure˜ na-L´ opez, Physical Review D 87 (2013), 10.1103/physrevd.87.084040

    2013 doi

  108. [116]

    J. E. Nyhan and B. Kain, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123016 (2022)

    2022

  109. [117]

    Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (Wiley, New York,, 1972)

    S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (Wiley, New York,, 1972)

    1972

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.